Preamble

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

ELDERLY MEN.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Labour why strong, healthy men who are 65 years of age are prevented from working in a Government factory by the Ministry of Labour on account of their age?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am not aware of any such action, which would be entirely contrary to the policy and practice of my Department. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case he has in mind.

RESERVED OCCUPATIONS.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Labour whether persons in reserved occupations are subject to any periodical test as to whether they are individually making an adequate contribution to the national war effort in such occupations?

Mr. Bevin: Every man who is reserved under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations and Protected Work is required periodically to complete a form giving particulars of the duties on which he is engaged. Hitherto, the check applied to these particulars has been mainly directed to the nature of the man's occupation, but arrangements are in process of being made to scrutinise also the nature of the output or services on which he is engaged.

COAL DISTRIBUTION, CHELTENHAM (LABOUR).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed his inquiries into the shortage of labour for coal and coke distribution in Cheltenham; and will he indicate the steps he is taking to remedy the deficiency?

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend has sent me particulars of a firm which has complained that a worker recently left its employment I understand that the worker concerned left because he was dissatisfied with his wages, which averaged just over £2 a week, and while the local Employment Exchange is endeavouring to fill the vacancy the terms are not such as to enable a worker to be transferred from elsewhere in order to fill it. The total demands for labour from coal merchants in Cheltenham are for four carters, two drivers' mates and one labourer and the necessary action is being taken to meet the demands as soon as possible, having regard to other urgent demands in the neighbourhood.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour the number of volunteers over military age from professions or trades who have responded to his recent appeal to undertake land-drainage work; whether many such individuals are likely to be suitable for such hard labour calling for considerable technical knowledge; and why the ability to drive a motor-car has been included with the qualifications required for taking up land-drainage work?

Mr. Bevin: I have no separate statistics of the number of men over military age from professions or trades who have volunteered for land-drainage work in response to my recent appeal. This work does not require technical knowledge or exceptional physical strength, and I am hopeful that some men of the type referred to will be found ready to undertake the work. Ability to drive a motor-car is not a necessary qualification for this work, but such knowledge would, of course, be useful to a man training to be a tractor driver.

Major Lloyd: Is it not possible to obtain recruits for this kind of job from the regular unemployed? Have attempts been made to do so, and, if they have failed, could the right hon. Gentleman say why?

Mr. Bevin: I have no regular unemployed. I do not think it is an unfair tiling to ask all parties to come forward and render national service.

WORKMAN'S DISMISSAL.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the recent case where an employer dismissed a workman, without giving the usual week's notice, for arriving late at work because his home had suffered through enemy action, with the result that six men and one woman came out on strike in sympathy; and what action he proposes to take against the employer?

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have particulars of the dispute to which he refers, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

CENTRAL REGISTER.

Captain Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Central Register is still in operation; whether he will give the number of persons whose names are now thereon; the number thereof known to be available; and the number employed from the Register to date?

Mr. Bevin: The Central Register maintained by my Department is still in operation; the number of persons enrolled on the Register is now 198,913. The great majority of the persons on the Register are already employed in work of national importance and are therefore available for employment only in the sense that they can be transferred, if necessary, to new employment of greater priority. Up to date 13,172 persons on the Register have been placed in work of national importance.

Captain Lyons: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to the matter in view of the fact that it is obvious, from the many appointments that are made not from the Register at all, that there is something beside merit which gets appointments in the case of persons not on the Register, and that people are being side-tracked by having their names thereupon?

Mr. Bevin: I have given it personal attention. I reorganised the whole business from top to bottom and put a person in charge who had had long experience as an expert in placing from Cambridge instead of a civil servant.

Captain Lyons: How is it that such a small number have been found appointments out of the thousands of appointments that have been made since the Central Register came into being? There is a good deal of public uneasiness about it.

Mr. Bevin: The Central Register is not a place for providing employment for people. It was never intended to be, and I have no intention of converting it into such an instrument.

SUNDAY WORK.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the comments of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, he will take steps to abolish work on Sundays except in very special cases?

Mr. Bevin: The recommendation on this subject in the Fifteenth Report from the Select Committee, relating to the aircraft industry, is broadly in accordance with views which have been expressed on behalf of the Government, particularly in my reply of 3rd April to the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Captain Lyons). Some progress has been made in this direction, and I am considering with my colleagues the methods by which Sunday working may be reduced to the utmost extent compatible with the flexibility necessary for certain systems of production and the temporary requirements of specially urgent work.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend remember a report issued during the last war that, with a given number of hours per week, production is high in the factories and it is not worth employing people on these very technical jobs for more than a given number of hours per week?

Mr. Bevin: The aircraft industry has certain peculiarities in this sense, that changes of type are so frequent that you keep getting a hiatus, and then you have to go all out, after re-tooling, to make up your production again. You cannot run the aircraft industry on a balanced order exactly the same as you can many other industries.

Sir Percy Harris: While recognising that principle, there must be a certain elasticity. Is not the principle accepted that in the long run a seven days' week does not increase production?

Mr. Bevin: I accept that, but assuming that a new type is coming out, if it is possible, by asking the men at the retooling period to go all out, to reduce the re-tooling period by a month, it makes a tremendous difference to production. I cannot give a definite and firm answer, as the circumstances are constantly under review.

FOREST WORKERS.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to provide a supply of forest workers for Forestry Commission and private estates; and whether the Employment Exchanges are able to assist owners requiring this class of labour?

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of any substantial unsatisfied demand for forest workers, if, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to persons engaged in the care of growing timber, and not in connection with timber felling.

Mr. Price: Is it possible for owners to get the services of some of the Norwegian labour which is here now?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that I cannot take the Norwegian labour off the duties it is now performing, especially having regard to the interests of our export programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — DETERMINATION OF NEEDS ACT, 1941.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Labour what is the instruction to officers of the Assistance Board in the administration of the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, covering the interpretation of a household; and will he indicate the change between the previous and the 1941 instructions?

Mr. Bevin: The term "household" is not defined in the Act, and the Board's instructions to their officers are therefore to the effect that it should be given its ordinary meaning, and that a person should not be treated as a member of a household if it can be shown that he is paying a reasonable sum for a separate room or rooms and making his own arrangements for food and possibly fuel and light. They have also been told that a person who has been evacuated because of the war and intends to return to his

old home when he can should normally not be treated as a member of the household where he is temporarily living. No change in this respect was necessitated by the Determination of Needs Act, 1941.

Mr. Pearson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the determinations now being made an unnecessarily narrow interpretation is being placed on this instruction?

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for a fresh medical examination of men called to the Colours after a certain minimum period has elapsed since they were previously examined and had their calling-up postponed for any reason?

Mr. Bevin: I have this matter under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (MR. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that prison restrictions imposed on Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru have been intensified since January and that correspondence dealing with important business has been delayed excessively, restricted or not delivered; that the delivery of books suffers similarly; and that food sent to him has been returned by the prison authorities; and whether, in view of the assurance given in December last that Mr. Nehru would be provided with necessary amenities, he will take steps to ensure that this and other political prisoners art: treated in the spirit of that assurance?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have made inquiries and am informed that the restrictions imposed on Mr. Nehru while under imprisonment have not been intensified. No recent complaint has been received as to delay in delivery of letters or books, but as their number is sometimes great, some delay is unavoidable to enable them to be examined. Only in one instance was a food parcel returned to the sender: that was in accordance with the rules then applicable. The rules on this subject have since been altered. As regards the last


part of the hon. Member's Question, I am satisfied that my assurance is being fulfilled.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider any representation that I make to him and evidence that I may provide on the point confirming my statement that there has been a distinct deterioration of treatment?

Mr. Amery: I have seen such a statement, and I have made inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

SHELTERS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call together at once the competent people in the constructional engineering and building industry, and other people, for the purpose of preparing a large-scale national scheme for the provision of strong air-raid shelters in areas where they are urgently required, and, later, in all industrial centres?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): For the reasons explained in the answer which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave to a Question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 2nd April, I do not contemplate any such revision of our shelter policy as my hon. Friend suggests, and accordingly I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a conference of this kind. The matter is, of course, under constant observation by my expert advisers.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Home Secretary how many of the 20,000 Anderson shelters in Sheffield, admitted in April to be unfit for use, have now been rendered fit; when the remainder will be so rendered; how many men are now employed upon the work; whether the quality of their labour is thoroughly satisfactory; and what is the population served by the 20,000 shelters and that served by those still unfit for use?

Mr. Morrison: I am informed that 14,800 Anderson shelters in Sheffield remain to be treated. At the moment 275 men are employed upon this work. I cannot forecast when the work will be completed, as I am not satisfied with the rate of progress or the labour resources

available and propose to look into the matter further. As regards the last part of the Question, it may be taken that the number of people affected is roughly in the ratio of four persons per shelter.

AIR-RAID SUFFERERS (WELFARE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Home Secretary who is directly responsible in each area which has suffered an air-raid for immediate advice and sympathetic assistance to the people affected, for moving their furniture, for the provision of food, etc.; and will he call the responsible Ministers together to review the situation, in the light of experience, and take steps to improve the machinery at once?

Mr. H. Morrison: Local authorities are responsible both for immediate advice and practical assistance to those who have suffered in air-raids, and most of them have established information or administrative centres for this purpose. The Government Departments concerned with such questions as feeding, housing and relief are in close contact through their regional representatives with the responsible local authorities. In reply to the second part of the Question, the position is that Ministers keep these arrangements under steady observation, with a view to the introduction of improvements, where necessary.

Mr. Smith: I recently had an experience of moving among broken-hearted people who had suffered as a consequence of the local authorities not carrying out their responsibilities. In cases of this kind will my right hon. Friend give personal attention to the issues arising out of the question in order to prevent a repetition of that kind of thing?

Mr. Morrison: I do, but if my hon. Friend will take the obvious course of letting me have the particulars of that case, I will at once go into it.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the obligation of the A.R.P. controller to see that these things are done properly?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, it is part of his duty.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is it part of the duty of the controller to see that these things are done?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, it is the duty of the A.R.P. controller to stimulate the general efficiency of all these services, as well as being the duty of the appropriate Government Departments.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not the responsibility and duty of the Regional Commissioners to see that the best preparations are made to deal with situations of this description?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is well known, and they do it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that areas which have not had heavy bombardments learn the lessons of those that have?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we do our best in the matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give a list of local authorities who have not yet prepared houses for the accommodation of air-raid victims; who have not appointed welfare officers; is any check kept on the preparation made in each locality; and what steps are taken to deal with local authorities that do not comply with Government circulars?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Local authorities have been requested to prepare houses for the accommodation of air-raid victims in areas where such provision is appropriate and to appoint information or welfare officers at the rest centres, and, in general, the local authorities have been prompt to take the necessary action. The service for the homeless is, however, a continuously developing one, and for this reason I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the Question is not readily available. My Department's regional officers are in close and constant consultation with the authorities to secure that the arrangements made are adequate.

Mr. Smith: In cases where local authorities do not accept their responsibilities or carry out their duties in accordance with the instructions sent out by the Ministry, what steps are taken to see that they do carry them out?

Mr. Brown: I have no knowledge of any such case. I have been round 10 of the Civil Defence regions in the last 14

weeks, and I am sure that if there had been a case of this kind, I should have heard of it. I do not say that I am fully satisfied with the adequacy of the arrangements made in all places, but we shall have a chance of discussing the subject after the Recess.

EVACUATION (CHILDREN).

Dr. Edith Summerskill: (for Mr. Martin) asked the Minister of Health the death rate amongst evacuated children; and how it compares with the normal death rate for children of the same age?

Mr. E. Brown: The statistics available as to the death rate do not distinguish between evacuated children and native children. All the evidence available, however, goes to show that, in general, evacuation has had a beneficial effect on children's health.

Dr. Summerskill: (for Mr. Martin) asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the high accident rate amongst evacuated children; and what steps he feels able to take to diminish its incidence?

Mr. Brown: I have no information to suggest that the accident rate among evacuated children is higher than among other children, but I should be very interested to examine any evidence on the point with which my hon. Friend can supply me.

ORGANISATIONS (ACTIVITIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that all the following associations, namely, the Free German League of Culture, Free German Youth, Austrian Centre, Council of Austrians in Great Britain, Young Austria, Working Refugee Women, Refugee Teachers' Association and Young Czecho-Slovakia are engaged in relief and welfare work and carry out no political activities contrary to the public interest?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not in a position to give a categorical answer to my hon. Friend's Question, but the activities of these organisations are being watched, and I shall have no hesitation in taking appropriate action should I deem it necessary to do so in the national interest.

Mr. Mander: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to think that up to the present


time any of these organisations have been doing anything contrary to the public interest?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put down a Question for the next day when I am answering Questions, I shall hope to be able to give him a more specific reply. At the moment my information is not in such a condition that it would be fair for me to make a more specific statement.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that when he says these organisations are being watched it creates the impression that they are suspicious organisations, and in view of the association with them of many people in this House and outside of undoubted quality, cannot he give some assurance that meanwhile no suspicion has been justified by the investigation?

Mr. Morrison: It is part of the duty of the Home Office to keep extensive watch over everybody—organisations and all sorts of people—and I think the House will agree that it is the obvious duty of the Home Office to keep observation on organisations of foreign people.

UNOCCUPIED PREMISES.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the difficulty of enforcing the Clearance of Lofts Order in unoccupied premises, where neither the owner nor any agent of his can be traced so as to secure the keys; and whether any power of forcible entry to see that in flammable material is removed exists in such a case?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Order confers the right of entry to premises to which it applies. As regards the general question of unoccupied houses, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) on 22nd May.

ROOF PROTECTION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to take any action respecting the recommendation of Home Office Fire Adviser on the provision of roof protective levels; and whether he intends to encourage the adaptation or improvement of roofs as a means of minimising fire danger from incendiary bombs?

Mr. H. Morrison: Advice in regard to this method of protection was given in the amended reprint of Handbook No. 9 "Incendiary Bombs and Fire Precautions" issued in June, 1940, and further action is being taken.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend indicate more precisely what kind of action is being taken and whether this kind of protection is to be widely applied?

Mr. Morrison: It would not be in the national interest for me to give further details.

FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he will approach the War Office for the release of the numerous trained men of the London Fire Brigade, who are now in the Army, and anxious to return to their fire-fighting duties?

Mr. H. Morrison: Arrangements were made with the War Office last year for the release from the Home Forces of men who had fire-fighting experience and who were willing to return to the fire service, provided that they were not serving in certain specified categories in the Army. More than 4,300 men were released under these arrangements, of whom 482 returned to the London Fire Brigade. I propose, however, to consider in consultation with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, whether anything further can be done in this matter.

Mr. Strauss: While expressing appreciation of that reply, may I ask whether, as stated by the Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, there are 400 men of the London Fire Brigade in the Services anxious to come back to fight fires in London?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say without notice, but evidence of that kind will no doubt help me in my arguments with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Sir P. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend explain how these experts in the fire brigade service were allowed to join the Army?

Mr. Morrison: I expect that it happened in the days when a lot of people did not attach as much importance to Civil Defence as they do at the present time.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Home Secretary when he expects to be able to complete the regulations for the State fire service set up under the recent Act?

Mr. Morrison: I hope that those of immediate urgency, dealing with the constitution of the new fire force areas and the responsibility of area officers, will be made at an early date.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will these regulations come before the House, or be placed in the Library, or in what form can they be discussed in the House?

Mr. Morrison: My impression, although I am not sure, is that these regulations will be in the same class of procedure as regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Home Secretary whether the Fire Prevention Executive Committee, under the chairmanship of the Postmaster-General, is to remain in being or whether its functions are to be altered; and whether he has in contemplation the setting-up of any central board, council, or committee, to control and advise, and which will include an Inspector-General and a Chief Staff Officer for Fire?

Mr. Morrison: I am unable at this stage to make any announcement about possible changes of organisation.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us the names of the Inspector-General and Chief Staff Officer for Fire whom he mentioned in his speech in the House?

Mr. Morrison: This question is wider than that of fire prevention, and that point does not arise. It will arise on the fire fighting side, but I am unable to give the information.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a good deal of public anxiety on this matter and that the sooner it is settled and a clear decision is reached the better?

Mr. Morrison: I have given an assurance that we shall move with all practical speed, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not cast doubt on that assurance.

Mr. Lindsay: Last week my right hon. Friend said that he was not contemplating any major changes in the fire prevention side. Do I understand from his first reply to-day that there is a modification of that decision?

Mr. Morrison: I think that my hon. Friend was dealing with another aspect of fire prevention, and on that my answer will still stand. On the general question of the fire prevention organisation, certain aspects are under consideration.

Mr. Riley: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that some employers are exercising pressure on employés, who are already doing Civil Defence service, also to undertake fire-watching; and whether he has approved of this course?

Mr. Morrison: I have strongly deprecated any action by employers which would tend to deplete the Civil Defence services, and very few cases have come to my notice of workers being pressed to choose between remaining in those services and performing fire prevention duties at the premises where they work. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he will inform me.

DETENTIONS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary whether Messrs. S. Lanni, S. Imponenti, Pietro Cavadaschi, Francis Vercelli and S. Volante, all of whom have been interned under Regulation 18B, are all or any of them British subjects; and were any of them transported to the Isle of Man prior to 24th March, 1941?

Mr. H. Morrison: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend refers to the cases of Pasquale Lanni, Renato Imponenti and Luigi Volante, these three men and the other two named in the Question were interned last summer when the general internment of men of Italian nationality was taking place. Four of them possess both Italian and British nationality, and the fifth is a naturalised British subject of Italian origin. One of them had endeavoured to divest himself of his British nationality by making a declaration of alienage. Another had an Italian passport and had made statements showing that he regarded himself as Italian. By inadvertence they were placed with Italian internees who


were removed to the Isle of Man. Instructions were subsequently issued for their return to this country. I may add that in one case the man, after his return to this country from the Isle of Man, asked to be sent back there if he could not be released.

Mr. Stokes: May I express my thanks to the Minister for correcting the names? He will recognise that these people may have several names. Is he aware that in the case of those who have British nationality he has committed an unpardonable offence against them, and will he say what steps he proposes to take to compensate them?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot see why my hon. Friend should be so anxious to spend public money in compensating people who have been sent out of the blitzed areas of Britain to the Isle of Man. If there is a legal point involved, he will also appreciate that it would be improper for me to make any statement upon a case which may come into court. While I am very sorry for the mistake, and I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for making a mistake, nevertheless I cannot see why I should start making offers of compensation.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the course of the Committee discussions on the Bill empowering the Government to transfer these subjects to the Isle of Man the Under-Secretary gave a categorical and specific denial to a question by me as to whether any British subjects had, in fact, been transferred to the Isle of Man in anticipation of that legislation?

Mr. Morrison: I frankly admit that that is perfectly true. My hon. Friend gave the answer in all good faith and on advice. It must be remembered that our records are out of London. It was a mistaken answer, and I am sorry for it, as is also my hon. Friend, but in the circumstances I think the House will not regard this as quite a capital offence.

CROPS (INCENDIARY BOMBS)

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Home Secretary what measures he proposes to take to reduce the risk of fire-bombs dropped among mature corn crops in the coming season?

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any special measures in contemplation for dealing with the danger of incendiary bombs to crops at harvest time; and whether he is prepared to make arrangements in each district for the co-operation in fire-fighting of this type of military personnel billeted in the neighbourhood?

Mr. H. Morrison: The matter to which my hon. Friends refer is being dealt with in collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that adequate measures have been taken against this risk?

Mr. Morrison: We shall take the best possible measures we can. I think my hon. Friend will agree that I ought perhaps not to go into details on a matter which might convey information to the enemy.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the War Office to see whether in rural areas the Home Guard could help in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that suggestion.

INTERNEES, AUSTRALIA.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether any agreement has yet been arrived at with the Australian authorities to rescind or modify the regulation which prohibits interned aliens from sending cables; and, in view of the aggravation in the situation of these men, which has arisen from the fact that even when authorised for release they are not being actually released owing to lack of shipping to bring them home, he will press for an early decision on the question of cables?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer to the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 22nd May. I now understand that a decision by the Australian authorities on the question of amended regulations to allow internees to send cables in certain circumstances is expected very shortly.

Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has now been dragging on for nine months and that this regulation works very cruelly? It takes


months to get a reply. Even in very urgent cases of sickness or important business matters they cannot communicate with their friends by cable. Will he ask the Australians to hurry up with the revision of a regulation which the Canadian authorities have never thought it necessary to impose?

Mr. Morrison: I have done and will do my best in the matter, but, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, it is a long-distance business, and I do rather think she is somewhat exaggerating the gravity of the situation.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it also realised that the war has been going on for some considerable time and that that also is not finished?

PERSONNEL (DISMISSALS, HOLBORN).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the concern caused by the dismissal during recent months by the Holborn Borough Council of leading members of their air-raid precautions service and recently of 27 stretcher bearers; and whether he will institute an immediate inquiry into these dismissals?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that the borough council have found it necessary to dismiss 27 members of the stretcher party service for conduct prejudicial to discipline and good order, and that they are reviewing each case in consultation with the National Union of Public Employés. Meanwhile, steps have been taken to ensure that an adequate service will be maintained.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these dismissals have been going on for months; that recently 27 men were dismissed and it is alleged they were dismissed because of certain trade union activities; and that there is very considerable concern in the locality?

Mr. Morrison: But there is another side to the story, and I think it would be injudicious on my part to intervene in this matter, which ought to be settled between the local authority and the union concerned.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Minister of Health what is the policy of

His Majesty's Government for assisting local authorities to meet the increased expenditure necessitated by air-raid damage and to offset the loss in rates; and whether this policy applies to local authorities throughout the country?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 13th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Tarn-worth (Sir J. Mellor). The policy set out in that answer applies throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW CLUBS, LONDON.

Mr. Denville: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in his Report in regard to clubs, he will state the number of new clubs registered since the commencement of the war; whether he is aware that licensed houses generally are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining sufficient supplies of excise-able liquors to meet the requirements of their customers, many of whom are members of the forces or otherwise engaged in the war effort; and whether he will take steps, by means of a special order or otherwise, to restrict the registration of new clubs during the remainder of the war?

Mr. H. Morrison: Between 1st September, 1939, and 30th April, 1941, 854 new clubs were registered in the Metropolitan Police District and 1,194 ceased to exist or were struck off the register, resulting in a net decrease of 340. The figures for the whole country are not at present available. I am aware that there has been some difficulty in certain areas in obtaining supplies of beer, but I understand that such delays as have occurred were of a temporary character, and I have no evidence to suggest that the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to my hon. Friend's proposal would be justified.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider applying to these clubs the principle of the concentration of industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL INSPECTORS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education how many of His Majesty's Inspectors of


Schools have been seconded for other work or released for military service; and whether any temporary increase of staff has been made in consequence?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): Thirty-eight of His Majesty's Inspectors and 13 Assistant Inspectors have been seconded for other work or released for military service. Since the outbreak of war three temporary appointments have been made.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the great strain upon education authorities and teachers in present war conditions, will not the President of the Board of Education consider making use of the services of qualified persons such as retired inspectors of schools?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a number of post offices have not got forms for applicants for supplementary old age pensions and will he see they are provided; and what is the position if the application for supplementary pension is delayed on account of forms not being provided to get them lodged in time for the first weekly payment?

Mr. E. Brown: A general distribution of the forms was made last month, and when it was found that forms were nevertheless not available at some post offices, a general reminder was issued to all post offices that they must stock the forms. It is hoped that by now all offices have adequate stocks. If, however, any applicant is unable to obtain a form at a post office, he should write to the Assistance Board's Office, and ask for one. Provided that he makes an application within a reasonable time thereafter, the Board will be prepared to regard the application as having been made on the day the letter was received.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will post offices stock instructions to go with those forms?

Mr. Brown: I will look into that point, but I think they have them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEWAGE DISPOSAL (RURAL AREAS).

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the arrangements for the disposal of sewage in rural areas containing large numbers of evacuees and refugees are adequate to prevent the outbreak of disease?

Mr. E. Brown: While the sanitary arrangements are necessarily under strain in some districts, the importance of adequate precautions in areas where there have been large increases in population is realised by my Department and by local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the arrangements being made for the concentration of industry, concentration or grouping will be applied to the electricity supply industry so as to reduce the present large number of authorised undertakings, many of whom are relatively small, and thus put into effect certain of the recommendations contained in the McGowan Report of May, 1936?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): It is not proposed to undertake such are organisation at the present time.

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision to create a new Ministry of War Transport and Shipping, he will state under what Ministry the Electricity Commission will now come?

The Prime Minister: I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement on this and cognate subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL WELFARE (BOMBED AREAS).

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of certain problems which have arisen known to him, he will consider appointing a Minister of Social Welfare for severely-bombed areas?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that there are circumstances which would justify the creation of a new Ministry for this purpose.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that there is a fairly strong opinion on this matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend not to close his mind until after the Debate upon the Civil Defence services?

The Prime Minister: I will keep my mind ajar.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the resolution from the Fife Area Council of the Scottish Old Age Pensioners Association, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, concerning the administration of food supplies; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The Prime Minister: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes" and to the second part"No"

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the demand of these old age pensioners for the removal of Lord Woolton has the support of very many organisations throughout Scotland, and, I believe, throughout the country as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is so, but if it were so, it would be a very ill-advised and unjustifiable demand.

PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. Denville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state the number of prosecutions that have taken place for infringement of the Ministry of Food orders?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The total number of prosecutions for infringement of orders relating to food control from the beginning of the war to the end of April, 1941, is 18,272.

GREEN ONIONS.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the price of matured onions is con trolled at 4⅓d per lb., but as unmatured onions are uncontrolled, unmatured autumn-sown onions are being sold in the

shops at 2s. to 2s. 9d. a lb., and growers are pulling young onions in large quantities to get the bigger profit; and will he consider placing a control price on all onions in order to safeguard the future supply of matured onions to the public, and prevent another shortage?

Major Lloyd George: It is not the practice of the trade to sell green onions by weight, but I am satisfied that the figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are greatly in excess of the present average retail prices. It is a normal and necessary practice to thin out part of the crop of onions grown for autumn harvesting and to sell the thinnings in the summer, but I have seen no evidence that this is taking place on a larger scale than usual. Increasing supplies of green onions are now coming on to the market and in the circumstances I do not consider that price control is necessary or that it would have the effect which my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: If the controlled price of onions is 4⅓d.per lb., at what stage in the growth of an onion is an onion an onion?

Major Lloyd George: I should want a lot of notice of that question.

MILK.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can announce the actual yield of liquid milk for the month of April obtained from the milk distributors by the operation of the Milk Restriction Order; and the computed percentage of milk so acquired as compared with the aggregate amount of available fresh milk during the same period?

Major Lloyd George: I am obtaining the information, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can announce the number of protests received by his Department against the methods of operating the Limitation of Milk Supplies Order; whether he has considered a protest from a trade union representing 229,000 organised distributive workers demanding that a full rationing scheme should be immediately introduced that will ensure


equality of sacrifice by all consumers and give every person an adequate supply; and whether he proposes to announce a new scheme forthwith?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, a letter on the subject has recently been received from the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, and a reply has been sent. In answer to the third part of the Question, all possible methods of restricting milk consumption are being actively examined, but I am unable to make any immediate statement.

Mr. Walkden: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that scores of retailers in the North of England are ignoring altogether the limitation Order, and is his Department prepared to take any action in these towns where the Order is being ignored?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, and I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would communicate with me if he has any information.

EGGS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can make a statement about the distribution of eggs; and whether he has any information about non-traders buying eggs from farmers and egg farmers at farms and other places?

Major Lloyd George: I hope to be able to make a statement on proposals for the improved distribution of both imported and home-produced eggs.

ORANGES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now state the arrangements made for the distribution of oranges through schools and clinics with a view to their use by children where the need is greatest?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. A statement on this subject will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a very widespread feeling in the country that this method is by far the most equitable and

useful of any the Government could adopt, and will he give it very careful consideration?

Major Lloyd George: That aspect of the matter is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CROPPING POLICY.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to impress on the county war agricultural executive committees the importance of studying the grassland survey maps, which have been prepared under the direction of Sir George Stapledon, with a view to determining a cropping policy on the various types of land which have been ploughed up, and which ought to be ploughed up?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Copies of the grassland survey map for each county, together- with a synopsis of the information concerning the grassland of the county, gathered in the course of the survey of the whole country carried out by Sir George Stapledon and Mr. William Davies during the previous two years, were circulated to the county war agricultural executive committees last autumn, to help the committees in considering the steps to be taken in their counties in the direction of grassland treatment. I have no doubt that these maps and synopses have been and are of great use to the committees, though the hon. Member will appreciate that a cropping policy must depend on many factors besides the state of the grassland.

SEWAGE TREATMENT.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the methods employed by Chesterfield and Kingston-on-Thames for the treatment of sewage; whether it is being used for agricultural purposes; and whether he intends to take any action to induce other authorities to employ similar methods?

Mr. Hudson: I am aware of the methods of treating sewage sludge employed at these two places, and understand that the authorities are disposing of the product for horticultural or agricultural purposes. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for the


Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on 19th February and 6th March, of which I am sending him copies.

DERELICT LAND.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the war agricultural executive committees are able to tackle the problem of reclaiming derelict, scrub and waste land; and that, in some counties, it is not necessary to allocate this work to a special ad hoc body?

Mr. Hudson: I see no advantage at the present time in setting up special ad hoc bodies to deal with derelict land.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that there are very large tracts of this land, particularly in Eastern counties, and that war agricultural committees are often so occupied with current business that they have great difficulty in handling the problem?

Mr. Hudson: I have stated on more than one occasion in Debate that the reclamation of derelict land depends upon supplies of labour, machinery and materials. The creation of ad hoc bodies does not increase those supplies. The important thing is, that what supplies we have should be used to the best advantage, and I am satisfied that that is taking place at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to supply an estimate of the cost of a national scheme of allowances for children under 15 years of age at 5s. weekly, allowing for savings effected by not duplicating provision for such children already made directly or through rebates on Income Tax; and, if so, whether he will cause the figures to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The cost of paying an allowance of 5s. a week for every child under 15 years of age in Great Britain would be about £130,000,000 a year at the present time. I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the latter part of the Reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 20th instant, except to

say that I am still investigating the matter, and I will inform my hon. Friend when this is completed.

Miss Rathbone: Is that information likely to be available soon, as otherwise the first figure the right hon. Gentleman has given is likely to convey a very misleading impression to the public, who do not realise that the great majority of the population are already covered by some allowance? The people so covered are earning less than 4 a week and are just those who need the allowance.

Sir K. Wood: I will endeavour to get the figures.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party have recently considered this matter in detail and have come to a conclusion about a desirable scheme?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, but I have also to-take into account the views of other people.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people think that people should be remunerated on the basis of their production of goods and not their production of babies?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, there are all those considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

BROADCASTS TO FRANCE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Information whether he proposes, in view of the attitude of the Vichy Government, to arrange for the British Broadcasting Corporation to emphasise its comment to the French people on the war news of the day?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): The B.B.C. has already been requested to make abundantly clear to the people of France, by way of comment on the news and otherwise, the views held by His Majesty's Government, as well as by the Free French, on the deplorable policy of the Vichy Government.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (LETTER CENSORSHIP).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to recent complaints


that criticism of the British Red Cross in letters between prisoners of war and their relatives in Great Britain have been blacked-out by the British censor; and in what circumstances, and by whose authority, has the action referred to above been taken by the British censor?

Mr. Nicolson: Immediate inquiries into the suggestion made by the hon. Member are being instituted, and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in the position to furnish a reply.

Sir W. Davison: Can my hon. Friend say whether any such instructions have been given by his Department?

Mr. Nicolson: I should be very much surprised if any such instructions had been given with my right hon. Friend's approval.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

RAILINGS (PUBLIC SQUARES, LONDON).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Supply what organised action has now been taken, and with what result, to in duce the ground landlords of London to donate the railings round the gardens in the public squares to the service of the country?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Systematic approaches have been made to the great majority of the parties interested in the ownership of the railings around the London squares, and, as a result, in a large number of cases railings have been surrendered for scrap purposes. There are still difficulties arising from many different interests involved and legal restrictions imposed upon the owners and trustees, but these are being dealt with as rapidly as possible. Meanwhile, the flow is satisfactory from the practical point of view.

Sir T. Moore: May we take it that my hon. Friend will Hot allow anything to interfere with getting this matter dealt with as soon as possible?

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Supply why a healthy man is prevented by the Ministry of Labour from being

given employment in a Government factory because he is the holder of a hotel licence?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: One of the standing rules relating to employment by the royal ordnance factories forbids employés to keep or hold a licence for, or in any way assist in conducting, a public house or beer house, pawn shop, or marine store dealer's shop or bookmaking business. My right hon. Friend has recently considered suggestions for relaxation, in the light of the present urgent demand for labour, but as the additional labour which would become available would be comparatively small, it seemed that any arguments for modification of this salutary rule did not outweigh those in favour of its retention. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the rule referred to.

Mr. Batey: Is the Minister himself aware that there is a war on? One could understand this arrangement in normal times, but man-power is wanted, and here are men with nothing to do during the day, strong, healthy men? Why not take them?

Mr. Macmillan: On reflection, I think my hon. Friend will see a number of reasons for this good rule. In regard to the first part of the Supplementary Question, my right hon. Friend is aware of the existing circumstances.

Mr. Batey: It is a silly rule, so I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at an early opportunity.

FOOTWEAR TESTS.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Ministry of Supply whether, in connection with the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on the subject of a special process for the treatment of Army boots to extend their life, he now has any further analysis of the test already made, in which certain information was given as to 180 boots; and whether he can state what has happened to the other 220 boots issued to units for observation last September?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Of the 180 boots tested, 140 were treated and 40 were untreated. At the end of the test, the outer soles were worn through in 108 of the treated boots and 34 of the untreated boots. The 220 boots were withdrawn


after periods varying from three to 10 weeks, as the men to whom they were issued were sent away on draft or were transferred to other units.

WASTE RUBBER (SALVAGE).

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Minister of Supply what steps are being taken to utilise the waste rubber salvaged in the United Kingdom; whether arrangements are in being to relieve local authorities and local dealers of their collection of waste rubber at reasonable periods; whether he has under consideration any scheme for putting back into manufacture the stocks of salvaged rubber waste which have accumulated throughout the country; whether he is satisfied that the reclaiming industry is, at present, capable of satisfying the requirements of rubber manufacturers for reclaim, which is one of their chief raw materials; and whether he has any plans to expand this industry in the immediate future?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: A considerable quantity of waste rubber is utilised by the rubber reclaiming industry for regeneration. The Salvage Department of the Ministry of Supply has, since its inception, assisted local authorities and dealers in the disposal of their material to reclaimers and other rubber manufacturers and has notified them of any special demand or outlet for waste rubber. The capacity of the reclaiming industry is ordinarily sufficient for the needs of United Kingdom manufacturers, but, in present circumstances, its extension is being considered. This is not likely to utilise the whole of the waste rubber, and other uses are, therefore, being developed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TREASURY NOTES (NON-ACCEPTANCE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that £1 and 10s. Treasury notes have been refused acceptance as legal tender at post offices in the Leigh area; whether this is in accordance with instructions from his Department or the Treasury; and whether he will make a statement as to the right procedure?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Allan Chapman): Yes, Sir. The Treasury notes to which my hon. Friend refers are not legal tender and were refused accept-

ance in accordance with directions issued by post office headquarters to all post offices. These directions have been in force for a number of years, and were issued on the instructions of the Treasury. Treasury notes, that is, notes bearing the facsimile signature of Sir John Bradbury or Sir N. F. Warren Fisher, ceased to be legal tender in 1933. The right procedure to be followed by a member of the public who wishes to obtain the value of such a note is to send it to the Bank of England, either through a bank, if possessing a banking account, or direct by registered post to the Chief Cashier, Bank of England, London, E.C.2. If, however, the note is mutilated or defaced, the fragments should be sent by registered post to the Accountant-General's Department, General Post Office, London, E.C.I.

Mr. Silverman: Why should these impositions be put on the holders of these notes when the Government are taking no trouble to collect the notes? Why should not the Post Office itself accept these notes and exchange them at the Bank of England, instead of people being asked to send the notes by registered post?

Mr. Chapman: These notes, according to the "London Gazette," ceased to be legal tender on 28th April, 1933. As to the other suggestions which my hon. Friend has been good enough to make, I will bring them to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not possible to open branches of the Bank of England?

Sir Herbert Williams: If these notes are sent by registered post and are lost, will the Postmaster General return to the senders the value of the notes which have been lost in the post?

Mr. Chapman: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put that Question on the Paper?

BURGLARY, SUB-OFFICE, FOREST GATE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any information in connection with the robbery at the Plashet Road sub-post office, Forest Gate, during the week end?

Mr. Chapman: The office was burgled during last week end and the safe forced. The total loss is nearly £1,000, but a


considerable part of this is in a form not readily negotiable. The police have the matter in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CHILDREN'S FOOTWEAR.

Sir T. Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade what he anticipates will be the restriction on boots and shoes available in the near future for school children in Scotland; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): There is no proposal at present to reduce the supply of leather for the manufacture of children's footwear, the total supplies of which for the United Kingdom as a whole should, therefore, remain at the same level as in 1940.

GLASS AND POTTERY QUOTA.

Mr. Denville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the dearth of glass and pottery in New castle, he will consider raising the quota?

Captain Waterhouse: I am not aware of a dearth of glass and pottery in Newcastle, but fresh supplies will be released after 1st June, when a new quota period begins. I, therefore, see no reason for increasing the quota.

WASTE RUBBER (EXPORT TO UNITED STATES).

Colonel A. Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what licences have been issued for the export of waste rubber to the United States; and whether he is satisfied that the amount so shipped is surplus to the home manufacturers requirements for reclaim?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Some licences have been issued for the export of waste rubber to the United States, but it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose details of our export trade in present circumstances. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CASUAL LIFTS (ARMED FORCES).

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been

drawn to the action of the police in country districts, who stop drivers of motor vehicles carrying trade plates because they were giving lifts to members of His Majesty's Forces, threatening prosecution for breaking the regulations; and whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have urged motorists to help serving men in this way, he will revise the regulations in order that such helpful action shall be within the law?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): Limited trade plates are granted only for special trade purposes, and as the duty payable upon them is very much lower than that payable on a fully licensed vehicle it is necessary to safeguard the revenue against abuse. I am, however, considering some amendment of the regulations so as to enable casual lifts to be given to members of His Majesty's Forces in uniform in vehicles being properly used under limited trade plates.

RAILWAY ADVERTISEMENTS.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that a British railways' advertisement is appearing in the daily Press which reads "When trains are late often the cause is this, the work of the Hun," and there also appears a picture of a railway bridge wrecked by enemy action, and another picture showing the resultant dislocation of our train service; and, as such propaganda is harmful as well as being a waste of railway funds, will he take steps to prevent this sort of advertisement showing the effectiveness of German bombing?

Colonel Llewellin: This series of railway advertisements has proved useful in helping the public to realise that there may be reasons outside the control of the railways for the late running of trains. The pictures do not convey any useful information to the enemy, and I see no reason to intervene in the direction suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consulted anyone else but officials about this question, and is he aware of the fact that a large number of ordinary people do not hold the same view?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, I have consulted my own common sense.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (BILLETING PAYMENTS).

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to delays extending upwards to five weeks or more in the payment for billeting accommodation of Royal Air Force men at a place of which he has been informed; is he aware of the unnecessary hardship and financial difficulties on the householder, created by these delays; and whether he will take steps to prevent such delays in the future?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Local inquiries are necessary, but I am having the matter looked into, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINE ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the accident rate at the coal face is causing deep concern to mineworkers; and will he have a special investigation made, separate and apart from the mines inspectors' reports, to find out the causes and also the percentage ratio as compared to other grades of mineworkers?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I share the concern which is felt about the continuing increase in fatal accidents from falls of roof at the face. The Government inspectors continue to give the matter their close attention, and also, I have no doubt, the workmen's inspectors, whose numbers and activities are being increased under the recent agreement between the two sides of the industry. I shall be meeting the inspectors again shortly to Investigate with them this problem, which has throughout the period of the war caused my inspectors and myself great anxiety.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is prepared to satisfy himself that there has been no deterioration in the support of the roof in mines?

Mr. Grenfell: We are not short of timber.

Mr. Macdonald: I do not mean in regard to quantity.

Mr. Grenfell: I am not quite sure. The point has been raised in some areas that home-grown timber is not as suitable for support purposes, but I do not think that that is a full explanation, because we find a very substantial increase in the number of falls at the face even though steel only is used.

MAN-POWER.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Baggeridge Colliery is working under the handicap of being short-handed by about 150 miners; that things are little, if at all, better in other Midland pits; and what action does he propose to take to remedy this most serious state of affairs?

Mr. Grenfell: As I informed the hon. Member on 20th May, the general question of providing the man-power required in the coal-mining industry is being discussed with other Government Departments. I am not, at present, in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise that the mechanisation of the industry is really quite as important as its actual numbers?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, as far as the Government can give a personal realisation of any problem, I know that the matter is being considered from that point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether a reply has now been given to the petition from citizens of the Seychelles Islands, received some months ago; and whether this, and the Minister's reply, will be made available to the House?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I assume that my hon Friend refers to the representations from the Seychelles Taxpayers' Association which formed the subject of his Question on 22nd January last. My Noble Friend has requested the Governor to reply to these representations; and a copy of the terms in which the reply will be made and of the representations from the Association will be communicated to my hon. Friend.

Colonel A. Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the rate of Income Tax in the Seychelles Islands?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

CITRUS GROWERS (LOANS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the advance of about £500,000 to Palestine citrus growers is in loans granted from Palestine banks at a rate of six per cent. per annum; and whether, in view of the financial difficulties experienced by these growers, more reasonable terms can be arranged?

Mr. George Hall: The terms of the assistance to Palestine citrus growers which has been guaranteed by the Palestine Government were carefully considered in consultation with the High Commissioner, and his advice was accepted that it would be best to follow ordinary commercial practice, the rate of interest charged being that ordinarily applied to commercial advances.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that the citrus growers' financial situation is very carefully examined before any loan is made, does he not consider that this is a very high rate of interest?

Mr. Hall: It is the ordinary rate charged for such transactions.

REFUGEES (ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that recently nine Jews arriving in Palestine in an open boat from Greece have been arrested and interned; and whether, in view of possible further escapes, sanctuary will be given to Jews, from Greece and other Nazi-occupied territories, in Palestine, similar to that accorded to non-Jewish refugees?

Mr. George Hall: The High Commissioner for Palestine reports that no such incident has occurred. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is not felt possible, for security reasons, to give facilities for the admission to Palestine of persons coming from enemy-occupied territories. This applies both to Jews and non-Jews.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Are not the Jews the only people who are helping us in Palestine; and should they not be employed and encouraged?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the continued refusal of a number of local authorities to accept the Government's view as to the undesirability of dismissing or persecuting men in their employ who have exercised the right granted to them by Parliament to register as conscientious objectors, he will make some further statement on the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I do not feel that I can usefully add anything to the statements already made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but no doubt this further Question by my hon. Friend and my Reply will assist in giving publicity to the matter. No recent cases have been brought to my notice.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some quarters the position is actually getting worse? The County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire recently asked the heads of institutions to report to them the names of people who are believed to be conscientious objectors but have not yet registered as such.

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I will take the matter up with the councils concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, as the maximum pension payable to a widowed mother of a soldier son killed in action, previously entirely dependent upon him, is 15s., and this in exceptional cases only, he will consider an amendment to the Royal Warrant in order to end this state of affairs?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to a similar Question put by him on 10th April.

Mr. Hall: Surely my hon. Friend realises that that Answer was very unsatis-


factory? Does his Ministry think a 15s. maximum enough in these days?

Mr. Paling: The Answer indicated that the rates were fully considered before the issue of the present Royal Warrant, and that they were thought to be appropriate.

Mr. Hall: The Warrant was issued some time ago. Since then prices have gone up, and rates in other directions have been altered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS (WAR DAMAGE).

Sir I. Albery: (for Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to introduce legislation concerning war damage to public utility companies?

Sir K. Wood: This is a complicated matter, and a good deal of time has been needed for its examination. I have now framed the general lines of a scheme, but before I can usefully introduce legislation I shall need to assure myself of the practicability of certain aspects of it and to obtain information from representatives of public utility undertakings on a variety of technical matters, on which my present information is incomplete. I propose, therefore, next to ask representatives of the principal public utility groups to meet my advisers and assist me in some of these matters, and I will introduce legislation as soon as practicable thereafter. As the House will no doubt wish to be apprised of the outline of the scheme I have in mind, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a short statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I need hardly say that the pending discussions will be entirely without prejudice to the right of the House to criticise and amend the proposals which I ultimately lay before it.

Sir H. Williams: When will these conferences commence?

Sir. K Wood: Immediately after the publication—to-day.

Following is the statement:

Section 40 of the War Damage Act excluded from the operation of Part I of that Act, which relates to immovable property, public utility undertakings as there denned.

Under the War Damage Act separate schemes were provided for immovable and movable property, but in the case of public utility undertakings it is proposed that both

classes of property should be included in a single scheme to be administered by the War Damage Commission. It was with this in view that the goods of public utility undertakings were exempted from compulsory insurance under Part II of the Act and the undertakers were advised to defer voluntary insurance.

Where the work necessitated by war damage is in the nature of repair rather than replacement, it is proposed that the war damage payment should be the actual outlay on repair, excluding any outlay resulting from the introduction of improvements.

Where, however, a structure or group of structures, or a movable asset, has been damaged beyond repair the war damage payment in the event of replacement will be the net outlay (after elimination of any outlay resulting from improvements), reduced in a proportion corresponding to the degree of depreciation or obsolescence of the old asset.

It may be that when an asset is damaged beyond repair, it will not be replaced by one of the same character or size, or, in the case of a structure, on the same site. In such a case it is proposed that the war damage payment shall be such sum, not exceeding the actual outlay, as the War Damage Commission may decide after paying regard to the principles mentioned in the last paragraph so far as they can be applied, and also to the service required to be performed by the undertaking.

Where, by reason of redundancy or for other reasons, an asset which has been damaged beyond repair is not replaced at all, it is proposed that a payment in the nature of a value payment should be made.

Provision for payment of outlay on temporary measures pending repairs or replacement will be added as in the War Damage Act.

The contributions payable under Part I of the Act on the basis of the Income Tax Schedule A or rating valuation cover war damage to immovable property only. Such a basis is inapplicable to a scheme which covers both movable and immovable property without differentiating between them. There is thus no existing valuation which could be used as a basis of contribution for such a scheme, and ad hoc valuation on a large scale would be impracticable in present conditions. It is accordingly proposed that the aggregate contributions of the members of each group of public utility undertakings should be 50 per cent. of the estimated aggregate war damage payments to the members of the group, and that the contributions should be payable in four annual instalments of which the first would be due on the 1st July, 1942 (such adjustments being made from time to time as may be necessary by reference too successive estimates of the aggregate payments). It is, however, proposed to provide that as soon as may be possible after the termination of the war the War Damage Commission shall, whether on their own initiative or at the instance of the parties, take into consideration the 50 per cent. rate and make a report whether, and if so to what extent, that rate should in their judgment be reduced as


respects any or all groups of public utility undertakings, having regard to the relative amount of damage suffered and to all other relevant considerations.

It is proposed that the aggregate contribution thus due from any group should be divided between the members of the group in accordance with a scheme made by them and approved by the Treasury, or, failing that, as the Treasury may by order prescribe subject to affirmative resolution of the House.

These proposals, which apply to the first risk period ending on 31st August, 1941, have been framed primarily with reference to the main groups of public utility undertakings. It should not be assumed that they will necessarily be applied to every type of such undertaking covered by the statutory definition and it may be possible to restore one or two of the minor groups within that definition to the ordinary provisions of the War Damage Act.

In addition to public utility undertakings, Section 40 of the War Damage Act refers to other undertakings including those valued for rating on the basis of accounts, receipts, profits or output. Examination of these cases is not yet complete.

It is intended in general that these other undertakings shall be dealt with on the basis of the War Damage Act except that where appropriate, provisions on the lines of the scheme for public utility undertakings will be applied. There will, however, be a number of cases where special provision will be necessary in applying Part I of the Act. On the contribution side, mines and certain similar undertakings may require special treatment in view of the fact that existing valuations represent in large measure the value of un-worked minerals beneath the surface which are not at risk.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

MOVEMENT OF POPULATION.

Mr. James Griffiths: There are many respects in which this war differs from any previous war in the history of this country. One is the fact that it involves very large movements of population from one part of the country to another. It will be agreed, particularly by those who have had experience of the problem, either at the evacuation end or at the reception end, that the degree of satisfaction with which this problem is handled is of very great moment to our war effort. We thought it desirable, before departing for the Whitsun Recess, to take this opportunity of dealing with problems connected with these large movements of people. I think it will be agreed that the migration of people at the request of various Government Departments is not likely to decrease, but rather to increase, in future. Therefore, the problem will well repay attention by this House; and we hope that, as a result of this discussion, some much-needed improvement will be secured.
There are now five clearly defined movements of population which can be summed up as evacuation. There is, first, the official movement of certain classes by the Government, for which the Minister of Health is responsible. That is the Government's official evacuation scheme, for children of school age and for mothers and children who are under school age, from vulnerable to reception areas. Secondly, there is the unofficial evacuation from vulnerable to less vulnerable areas, which has become a very big problem. Thirdly, for the first time, I think, we have a very large army, amounting to millions, in this country, providing its own problems of reception and billeting. Fourthly, there is the movement of war workers from areas where industries either have closed down themselves or have been deliberately closed down by Government policy to places where the war industries are situated. Then there are at certain periods—I do not want to refer to places by name—emergency evacuations from certain places to other places. These are

the kinds of evacuation, all of which, in a sense, if they are not interwoven, at least overlap one another and very often create very serious problems indeed.
There are now about 10 Government Departments which are concerned with the movements of various sections of the population for the reasons I have mentioned. It has become essential that there shall be the closest—I hesitate to use the word "co-ordination"in this House, as it is a very much overworked word, and has not a very good history, having regard to some of the coordinators we have seen on the opposite side of the House, and I would rather prefer to use a word which I think was popularised in this country by a very distinguished fellow-countryman of my own, Robert Owen—co-operation It is a much better word than co-ordination. I therefore want, first of all, to press upon the Minister, and to ask him, Are complete steps being taken to secure that the Government Departments which are concerned with the movement of population and all the problems that arise out of that movement have the closest possible co-operation, and do they plan this job out together? There is evidence—we see it, certainly, in the reception areas—that there is not that close co-operation. There is a great deal of competition for available accommodation and for billets, which is very undesirable indeed, and is leading, oftentimes, to very undesirable complications. I therefore begin by asking, What is the co-operation that exists among Ministers? Is there a common plan? It is very desirable that there should be, and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on that point.
Before the war broke out, using the information which was then available to them— and I make no complaint about this, as we are all victims of circumstances, in a sense—the Government divided this country into three kinds of areas. One kind was described as "vulnerable" areas, which, in the opinion of the Government, acting upon the information they had, were likely to be the subject of enemy attack. The second kind of area was described as "neutral" areas, which might become secondary targets, but were not very likely to suffer much from enemy action, and were therefore areas to which populations would not be moved and


from which there would be no evacuation. There were, thirdly, "reception" areas, which were regarded as being safe and to which evacuation could take place, particularly the evacuation of the priority classes. As far as I know, that classification still exists, though the circumstances of the war have been changed. It is now over 12 months since the fall of France, which had a very profound influence indeed upon this classification, and very early after that we urged upon the Government that this classification should be abolished because it did not then meet the circumstances at all.
There are towns which have been very badly affected and have been blitzed continuously but which until quite recently, almost until a few days ago, were still regarded by the Government as being neutral areas. I urge that the time has come for a new classification, as now we are in a better position to estimate; or to judge what areas should be called. I suggest that the term "neutral" should be cut out altogether. It is meaningless and pointless; it serves no purpose at all, and we ought to abolish it. The two areas which remain to be classified are those areas which are vulnerable and those which are reception areas, and I think it is possible to do that now with a good deal more knowledge than when we did it in the early days, even before the war. Which are the areas which can be regarded as reasonably safe for the whole period of the war? I think that that can be decided. The technique of German bombing, the kind of targets for which they go, all these things, are now very much better known to us than at any previous period in the war, and I think that we can lay it down reasonably that there are towns, villages, areas and counties in this country which can now be regarded as safe.
I suggest that these areas, having been denned as reception areas No. 1, should be the areas to which the priority classes — mothers, children under five, and school children— should be evacuated. Many of them have not been evacuated to these areas, but are in areas which, if not vulnerable, are in dangerous proximity to areas which are very vulnerable indeed. That is the first suggestion that I make to the Minister, and I hope that he will consider it now, during the summer months.

There has been more than one evacuation from London to a certain part of the country, and then a re-evacuation, and I think it will be agreed that the re-evacuation of school children creates almost more problems than the original evacuation. It is very desirable, now that we have the knowledge fixed firmly in our minds, to define the places to which we can evacuate school children, mothers, and children of five, where we can reasonably expect them to be left for the whole duration of the war. I make that suggestion to begin with.
I believe it has become essential—and I put this forward as a suggestion to meet the very difficult problem of the Minister —to have a zone around all the places in the country which have already become vulnerable or are likely to become vulnerable. That is essential to meet the problem I have already indicated in trying to classify the kinds of evacuation. I put forward the suggestion. —it has been put forward elsewhere—to the Minister, as one which deserves every consideration, and it is, that around the vulnerable areas there should be a zone or a belt 25 or 30 miles deep, away from the area—if on the coast, inland, and if in the centre of the country, around it. These areas should be cleared of evacuees, if there are already evacuees there, who should be moved to other areas where they can live, in order that we may create around those areas places where there can be the reception of emergency evacuation. That, I think, has become very necessary. Everyone who knows these blitzed towns and their problems knows perfectly well that these problems are among the most difficult of all. Oftentimes you get it now. I know from my own experience, in an area that I know very well, that already the accommodation is taxed to its utmost capacity by evacuees who have come very long distances. They are there — mothers and children. Secondly, we meet the problem— and it is a tremendous problem— that in addition to this, with our accommodation already taxed almost to the utmost, suddenly we get this emergency evacuation. It has to be met; it is a problem. I am putting forward the suggestion to the Minister that the way to meet it is to clear a belt of 25 or 30 miles around these vulnerable areas in order to keep it for emergency evacuation.
The Minister knows perfectly well that this creates some of the biggest problems with which we have to deal in this country. So much for classification.
Let me come to the reception side of the question. I wish to refer to one or two of the administrative problems which arise in this connection. First, there is the question of the reception units. In the original scheme, and in the scheme which is now being operated, the Government decided that the appropriate authority to act as the reception unit was the smaller authority— the rural or urban district council as the case might be. I have held the view from the beginning, and all that I have seen of this problem at the reception end has confirmed that view, that the smaller local authorities are not the best authorities to handle this question. They have not the staffs. Few of them have any full-time officials at all. Many of them have only a part-time clerk, or even a part-time surveyor, or a part-time medical officer of health. I think the country ought to be profoundly grateful to these smaller local authorities for the way in which they have set about tackling this large problem, but it imposes too heavy a burden upon them and they are not, as I say, the authorities best equipped to deal with this matter.
I may add a second consideration. Apart from the question of the authority it self being too small and its staff inadequate to deal with the problem, its area is not large enough. It does not offer the kind of reception scope which is required in order to meet the situation in the most satisfactory way. Therefore, I urge a reconsideration of that aspect of the matter, and that throws upon me the responsibility of offering certain suggestions. There is a question to which I do not wish to refer at length to-day because, I believe, it is to be debated fully on another occasion, namely, the question of the regions. I would only say this about the regions. Some time or other, this House will have to make up its mind on the subject of regional organisation. I am not much enamoured of it myself. It is a piece of bureaucracy of which I sometimes become rather frightened. No body knows how much power the Regional Commissioners have, and there is a good deal of "hush-hush" about it,

and many things which I do not like. The suggestion has been made, however, that all this matter with which I have been dealing should be handed over to the regions, and I leave that question for the fuller Debate which we are to have on a later occasion. But, speaking for my own area, I would express the opinion that it is not the urban or rural district council or the town council which ought to be the reception unit; it is the county council. The county councils have developed enormously in the last two years. Their personnel has developed, their experience has developed, and they have wide services of every kind. I would urge, therefore, speaking as I say for my own county, and, I think, for every county in the area which I know best, that the Minister should consider the suggestion that the best authority to handle this problem is the county authority.
I come to the next problem of importance in the reception areas, and that is the problem of accommodation. If the Minister and the Government take what I think is the general view among most of those who have studied this matter, including local-government workers, that the county and not the smaller body, should be the unit, certain further considerations arise. I have already indicated that in my view official evacuation, movements of war workers, movements of men in the Services, unofficial evacuation and so forth, are all likely to increase. Therefore, the problem of accommodation in the reception areas becomes of great importance. I do not know whether the Government have made a real, thorough survey of the accommodation available in the reception areas, but I have grave doubts whether such a survey has yet been made. It is true that questions have been asked in these areas as to who can take evacuees and so forth, but I think it important that there should be at the earliest opportunity—now, during the summer months—a complete survey of accommodation in the reception areas. It has been suggested that this accommodation should be classified, that there should be a survey, first, of all large buildings which could be taken over for hospitals, or used for other emergency purposes, a survey of all halls, all cinemas, all big houses and their accommodation facilities. All that is very desirable. It is a very bad thing to bring 200 or 300 people to a


district and find that no facilities to house them are available for 48 hours or perhaps three or four days. Secondly, it is suggested that a survey should be made of all empty houses and shops and finally of all private dwellings, not only as to the accommodation available in them, but, what is equally important, as to what kind of evacuees would be best fitted into the circumstances of the particular home. I urge on the Minister a survey of this kind should be undertaken at once.
Having by this survey discovered what accommodation is available, the Government ought to use their powers and to say, "This accommodation belongs to the nation" There is going on in these reception areas, and I speak frankly about it, an awful rent ramp. I know that very often one cannot blame the people themselves. They get offers of high rents, and, acting on the capitalist morality, they take the most they can get. This is the example which they have had from very much higher quarters. On the other hand, there are people—and I do not blame them either—who feel that they simply cannot stand the blitz any longer and who go 20 or 30 miles out from the towns and offer fabulous sums for furnished rooms. They get there first and take all the accommodation available, and when much more deserving cases arrive there is no room for them. I think, therefore, that having made a survey such as I suggest, the Government should say: "All this accommodation belongs to us and we shall need rationing of accommodation in order that it may be used to the best advantage for the purposes of the nation."
Those are some of the administrative problems which need attention, and I turn now to the question of evacuation it self. The decision on whether evacuation, particularly of the priority classes, should be compulsory or not, is a very difficult one. I note with some interest, according to a statement in the Press, that even the Nazis, who are past-masters in the art of compelling everybody, who live upon ruthless compulsion, have hesitated—I think it is in Hamburg—to introduce compulsory evacuation. If anything were required to show the difficulty of this problem, that fact does so. But while I appreciate its great difficulty for the Government, I have always felt that it is an even more difficult problem for

the woman who has to decide whether she will evacuate her own children or not. I sometimes ask myself whether it is quite fair to place the responsibility upon her. Sometimes I am inclined to veer round to the view that we ought to take full compulsory powers ourselves. As it is, we let the woman herself decide whether she and her family will go away or not. Everyone knows how deeply-rooted is family life in this country. It is more deeply rooted among working-class people than among others, because the families of the working class live together so much more, and in their case it is placing a tremendous responsibility on a woman to ask her to decide whether her family is to go or not. Sometimes, as I say, I am worried about whether we are doing the right thing in refusing to decide the matter ourselves. I gather that in certain circumstances, in the case of invasion, for example, we shall decide this matter ourselves. Candidly, I see little difference between what is termed- invasion and what is termed the blitz. After all, the blitz is a kind of invasion. I cannot urge the Government to reconsider the matter now, but I do urge them to prepare for the time when they may have to make up their minds about compulsory evacuation.
Therefore, we must assume that evacuation will go on for the time being on the voluntary basis, and I now come to the two classes for which the Ministry of Health is definitely responsible—mothers and their young children and school children between the ages of five and 16. With regard to the children of school-leaving age, I think they have fitted in reasonably well, and I know my hon. Friends from evacuation areas will not object to my paying a tribute to the fathers and mothers in their areas who have done their part. When the history of this war comes to be written, this will be one of its finest chapters. It is a grand thing to see an evacuee as one of a family, cared for with all the delicacy with which a father and mother care for their own children, but sometimes those responsible have not Shown all the social imagination that they might have shown; sometimes there is a complete lack of imagination in deciding where certain children should be sent. The Minister knows what I am referring to, but, in spite of that, I think the evacuation of the normal, healthy children has been successful. At the same time it is


true to say that the evacuation of mothers and their young children to billets in private houses has been a failure—a complete failure. I remember that an old Welsh collier used to say, "One hearth and two women equal a"—well, the word is one which I will not use in this House. The provision of hostels is the only way in which this problem can be met, because, as I have said, the fitting of mothers and young children into private homes does not work.
May I urge upon the Minister that it is very desirable to see that steps are taken during the summer months to ensure that everything that can be done will be done for the care and welfare of evacuees in reception areas? There should be a much larger provision of communal meals for the children in schools. A big burden is taken off the mother who cares for the child if the child can get a mid-day meal at school. I also think it is desirable that there should be communal centres for the children in reception areas. In some reception areas there is little in the way of social amenities. The children come from the towns to the country, and we must try to provide some of the things that they miss. One of my hon. Friends has said that one of the things that they miss most is fish and chips. I do not know whether fish and chips can be elevated to a place among the social services—[An hon. Member: "Why not?"]—Yes, why not? But I suggest that the question of these communal centres and other things to ease the problem should be carefully looked into.
We all deplore the cause of this great movement of population. It is a tragic sight to see mothers and young children having to leave their homes and go far away, but it has its good side. It is breaking down the barriers between the town and the country, which I think will be of inestimable value to the nation in the end. The other day at a village in the heart of my county I saw coming from a field a team of horses with boys astride their backs, as we used to do. I talked to these boys, and they told me that they were from Bermondsey. Here they were in the heart of the country, tasting the real joys of country life for the first time. I think the joys of childhood are half missed if a child never sees the joys of the

country. While the barriers between town and country are being broken down, the barriers between people are being broken down. I give notice to my hon. Friends representing London constituencies that the many children who will comeback to a new and better London will be very much enriched by being able to speak to them in the best language in the world. It is, I think, a great social experiment, which in the end will redound to the credit of the whole nation. A collier in a Welsh village who was acting as host to two London boys told me that when they reached the village square and saw the beautiful landscape of the valley and the glorious hills of Wales, one of them said, "Haven't they got a big sky here?" It was the first time he had seen the glories of God's sky. If evacuation has done nothing else, it has widened horizons. I am sure the Minister will consider the points which I have raised, because he knows we are all anxious that this great service and the problems of evacuation shall be properly handled. What I have said to-day has been with the one desire of making evacuation the real success it deserves to be.

Mr. Loftus: I am sure the whole House has listened with great interest to the speech we have just heard, and with a considerable measure of agreement. I would like to comment on some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). One point he raised, which was of immense importance, was that we should provide now, before the coming of winter, for the towns which have suffered severely from aerial bombardment. Especially should we provide for the port areas where many working-class houses and other kinds of property have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair. He put forward the suggestion that areas 25 to 30 miles behind the blitzed towns or ports should be cleared of all evacuees and reserved for the families of those who are homeless or become homeless in the blitzed towns. There is a certain port—not in my constituency— where there has been heavy devastation of factories and industrial premises. Working-class houses and such like property is situated close to the dock area, and when the docks have been attacked this property, which was built many years ago, has been greatly damaged. Many


working there have been rendered homeless. We have to make provision for them during the coming winter. Many of the houses are beyond repair, and probably it would be much better to repair better-class property further back, to be utilised for these people who have been blasted out of their homes, rather than to waste the limited man power and material available on repairing property which clearly is not worth repairing and which may be knocked down in the next attack.
There is another problem. We have to find shelter for the workers at the docks and in the factories, but what about their wives and families? The buildings in the very vulnerable area are not suitable. Furthermore, I feel that the ordinary workman will not, after recent experiences in some places, leave his wife and family in those houses while he is perhaps a mile away working at the docks or in the factory. We have to provide for the wives and children. I suggest that there are only two methods of doing this. One of them is the method proposed by the hon. Member for Llanelly, of taking from a 25 miles or 30 miles zone all evacuees and all the people whom it is not essential should continue to live there—we want every bit of available housing accommodation—andputting the wives and families from the working-class area which has been largely destroyed, or which is liable to be destroyed, into those houses. That is one solution.
But what about the workmen themselves? If they lived 25 miles or 30 miles away from their work, there would be grave problems of transport. I suggest that there is an alternative which I commend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Why not build hutment camps now, four or five miles away from the docks and the factories, which would provide in the coming winter shelter, warmth, one hot meal a day, baths, sanitation, and above all adequate transport facilities that would not over-tire the workers going to and from their very hard and occasionally dangerous work? I would like my right hon. Friend's Department to-day to be planning these camps three or four or five miles out and moving the dockers and factory workers into them, if possible with their families. If the families cannot be put into the camps, because there is not

enough accommodation, they should be moved further back, but it would be better for the families to be with the men. There would have to be transport. Arrangements would have to be made now for roads adequate to take the people to and from the new camps. If the roads were not adequate, new roads would have to be constructed.
Frankly, this is what I fear. Our people's endurance has been magnificent, especially during last winter. I think it would be impertinent for anybody to attempt to praise them, for their endurance has been beyond praise. But we must not try their endurance too high during the coming winter. Therefore, the fear which I have is that next October the authorities will suddenly wake up to the fact that the dock labourers and factory workers have had their homes destroyed, that there is inadequate shelter and not enough warmth, that they cannot get hot meals—that something must be done about the position. Then it will be too late. We ought to have an army of workers organising and preparing the camps, transport, and roads now. If I am told that we cannot get the men to do this work, because they are in the Army, I reply, "Take them out of the Army" It is of vital importance that we should maintain the morale of the people. I do not fear their spirit declining, for their spirit is magnificent, but we must keep up their physical fitness and physical condition, which is the basis of their spirit.
Incidentally, may I throw out one suggestion, although it is hardly relevant to this Debate? Might it not help matters if some of the working-class areas near the docks which have been practically abolished were converted now into shuntings and railway sidings? This would enormously facilitate the rapid handling of goods unloaded at the docks. I think that suggestion is worthy of consideration.
To turn to other problems—those associated more with the district where I live—there is the great problem of the children whose parents keep them in towns that are liable to attack. There seems to me to be a conflict in the policy of two Government Departments. The Regional Commissioner, no doubt acting on the instructions of the Ministry of Home Security and the Ministry of Health, issues posters urging people to evacuate


from these towns, and occasionally loudspeaker vans try to stir up the people. Then the President of the Board of Education writes urging that the schools should be opened in order that the children shall not lack education. I know of a case in one town where the President of the Board of Education wrote suggesting that a certain school should be opened. The day after the letter was received, at eleven o'clock in the morning, the roof of the school was blown off. It was lucky that the local authority had not opened it.

Mr. Lipson: Does my hon. Friend suggest that when parents say they will not send their children away— and at present they have a right to refuse —the Board of Education are to punish the children, because of the decision of the parents, by depriving them of education, and injure the State by allowing the children to run wild and perhaps grow up to be a menace to the community?

Mr. Loftus: I was about to put the problem, which is an extraordinarily difficult one for parents and local authorities. The position is that the Board of Education wish the schools to be opened, but the parents say they will not allow their children to go to school in places where attacks come, not in the night, but at any time during the day several times a week. The parents say they will not send their children to school Under the law,' the parents should be prosecuted. Does the Government Department concerned advise that they should be prosecuted? I do not think so, from what I know. The position is very difficult and utterly illogical.
Before concluding my remarks, I want to deal with a minor point, but one which affects a great many people. In the case of evacuation areas, where there is practically compulsory evacuation or semi-compulsory evacuation, people leave their houses, lock up the houses, and leave the furniture in them. But let it be remembered that a great many people have put all their savings into house buying. Many of them are elderly people -of small means, who are dependent for the whole of their income on the rents received from the houses. As these areas are moratorium areas, they get no rents whatever, as the furniture is left in the house, they cannot let it, and therefore

they are deprived of their income. It is a cause of hardship which I suggest merits special consideration. I think that is all I wish to say on this huge and terribly important subject, but, in conclusion, I will return to my main point. Do let us now, during these summer months, so organise our system that when winter comes people working in docks and factories have adequate shelter and warmth, and at least one hot meal in the evening, together with transport facilities, which will not try their physical endurance too much.

Dr. Haden Guest: I do not want to deal with the details which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), nor do I wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in the very admirable survey he made. I wish to confine myself to reminding the House what the evacuation policy was when it was originally accepted by Parliament. It was not a policy of evacuating school children and mothers, but it was a policy, deliberately conceived as a military measure, to minimise casualties by spreading the population more widely. People were to be dispersed instead of being congregated together. This policy was limited—and I refer anyone who is interested in this matter to the original report, which lays down this principle very clearly—to the necessity of carrying on production urgently required for national needs. I think we ought to get back to that conception. One of the most important things is to minimise casualties, but it is equally important to clear the areas where urgent production is being carried on of those who do not need to live there for military reasons. I will not state the reasons to-day, because I understand we are to have an opportunity of an extensive Debate on all aspects of this problem at a later date. It is quite true that the basis of the evacuation policy, as laid down in the original report, was voluntary, and there is no doubt whatever that that is the best and wisest course to take as far as it will go, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, when a woman is faced with the very difficult choice of saying whether she will be evacuated for the sake of her child, which means leaving her husband to his own devices and to look after himself, it is, in certain circumstances, an unfair choice for her to have


to make, especially when the authorities know, as they do, and which no private citizen could be expected to know, which places are more dangerous than others. Under those circumstances, the Government should make evacuation compulsory in certain areas.

Mr. Doland: In the report to which the hon. Member has referred was it not laid down that in certain circumstances there should be compulsory evacuation?

Dr. Guest: My hon. Friend was a member of that Committee, and I see the right hon. Gentleman who was our chairman, sitting on the Front Bench. We all remember there was a definite proposal in that report, that under certain circumstances the power of compulsion might be used. I think that under certain circumstances when it is within the knowledge of the Government that a certain area is dangerous—and these areas vary in that respect from time to time—compulsion might very well be exercised. I believe it would be welcomed by many people. I understand that the London County Council, which originally was definitely against compulsory evacuation, is now very largely in favour of it. That shows the lesson of experience. I ventured to draw attention to this wider aspect of evacuation, because I wanted to say, quite definitely, that the policy of evacuation has never been applied in its entirety. We have made proposals to evacuate mothers and children and so forth, and, as has been said, it has been a wonderful social experience, reflecting credit on all concerned, and, looking at it from every way, there have been very few casualties on either side. [Interruption] —Possibly my experience of this problem is as wide as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), even if it has been in a different area. My own experience is that the number of cases of maladjustments is very small in comparison with the total. We all know it is a very difficult problem indeed. The scandal of social conditions revealed by our early experience in evacuation was, of course, a great shock to the nation, but it was a healthy shock, because it showed the conditions which existed to a great number of people who were ignorant of the facts. Most of the difficulties were got over by good feeling and kindliness.
I cordially agree that there is a necessity for a more intensive survey than has hitherto been undertaken. However, I know, as no doubt the Minister of Health will tell the House, that a very elaborate and extensive survey has been made, and is at this moment in process of being made. People are being asked exactly what class of evacuees they will take—. whether they will take children, industrial workers and so forth. There are certain people, not, I hope, very many, who manage to wangle themselves out of the acceptance of responsibility, not only in regard to taking evacuees, but in regard to having their houses used for any other purpose than their own personal enjoyment. I think the Government ought to regard that very sternly. I heard the other day, on excellent authority, of a house which contained 80 rooms, desired for a certain purpose, which I will not specify. The owner refused, and it was requisitioned, but the owner managed to pull wires, and it was de-requisitioned. That owner has not, up to the present, had any inconvenience whatsoever placed on his shoulders, and, with every sympathy which I certainly feel for a man who desires to live in his own house, I venture to suggest that a house of 80 rooms ought to be used by more than one family and a few occasional visitors. I know it is very hard for people who may be living in houses of historic value, and who have art treasures, to have their houses requisitioned for the Army or some other purpose, but at the same time it is not right and proper that accommodation of that kind should be empty when it is urgently required. I suggest that the Minister when making his survey should take careful note of exceptions of that kind, and that reasonable steps should be taken to see that such accommodation is made available. The particular house which I have mentioned would make an admirable hostel for mothers or hospital for children. At any rate, it should be used for some such purpose instead of serving private needs.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place. I hope he will be able to reply to the points which I wish to raise, and that he will not only inform the House, but, through the House, the people of Scotland, that better provision will be made in the event of further blitzes


coming to our part of the country. In a part of the country which was badly blitzed absolutely no provision had been made for anything of that kind. People were treated, not with respect, but as if they were an army of criminals. The Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head, but he knows of a case which I have brought to his particular notice. I have refrained systematically since the outbreak of war from making speeches or putting questions in case it might be said that I was not in favour of the war and that I have let my country down. I wish to make it clear that that is not the case, but I am not going to stand by and see my folk treated in the manner in which they are being treated.
Not 300 yards from where I live—and I live in a decent place which the Secretary of State for Scotland informs me is not an evacuation area—people were evacuated, not into decent homes—no fear, though there are hundreds of them —butinto a hut on a railway siding. There are husband and wife and 13 members of their family living under conditions that are a disgrace. I invited the Secretary of State for Scotland, I invited the Under-Secretary, I invited the District Commissioner to come and see the conditions for themselves. Not one of them did so. The Secretary of State for Scotland sent representatives to make a report about this hut, and they made a report which was a fallacy. I ask him to go and see for himself, so that he will not be let down by individuals who make such a false report. Part of this hut, measuring 30 feet by 16 feet, is reserved for these people. The other part of the hut is still occupied by Boy Scouts. There is nothing but one lavatory and a gas fire. When the people went into it they had to repair a leak in the roof. There are two beds, and the rest of the folk had to sleep on the floor. Is that in the backwoods of Canada? No, it is in my constituency.
Can anyone wonder at the discontent that is abroad and that Communists are running a candidate in Greenock because of these things that are happening all over the place? There is another place in Scotland—the Secretary of State knows my country as well as I do—which was asked to make provision for 200 more people. How many people do you think

that place did take? It took 1,500. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeing to it that arrangements are made so that that does not happen again. I could give many other instances of people who have been evacuated. Were they evacuated into decent homes? No fear, they were sent into apartments which were already over-crowded, and then we have to listen to talk about the provision that is made for these people and their humane treatment. My folk have not been humanely treated, and so discontent is rampant. They could not be treated worse than they are. I have made many attempts to get this thing put right, and it is not an easy job because I am not being supported by those who could support me in trying to put these things right. No longer will I sit quiet here.
Take the case of what happens to 22 key-men employed in a shipyard. They have to travel 20 miles by bus, and then they have to walk three miles away into the wilds. In a terrible fortnight of bad weather—rainy, cold, miserable weather —they had to walk these three miles away into the wilds and walk back again after work to get the bus. I have raised this matter with everybody I could, and now I raise it in this House because I am right up against it. This bus does not take the men right up to the shipyard. They have to change and wait until they get another bus. That is the way my folk are being treated. That is how the workers are being treated, and discontent is rampant as a result of it. I have had a vote of censure passed on me by a town council because I drew attention to the conditions which followed on a blitz. I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to go and see for himself the conditions in which my folk have to live. It is worse than I stated.
I went to the town clerk and reported the matter. It is hardly believable. I tried to get in touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The town clerk said he would have engineers on it and see what could be done. I went back a few days later and took the editor of the "Scottish Express" with me to see what was going on, but nothing had been done. Since then I have approached the Deputy-Commissioner and asked him if he would see to this business. He said he would certainly go down, but he has not been


down yet. Then they appealed to me in regard to air-raid shelters. Again I took the editor of the "Scottish Express" to see what was going on, and in order to have witnesses other than a revolutionary Socialist, as they dub me when it suits them. I am not blaming the Secretary of State, but I want him to get a move on. I know he has inherited this, and so have I. We have all inherited this business. We are not responsible for it, but that is no reason why we should sit under it. It is our duty to do what we can to change it now and not just push it off and make excuses. It is quite easy for a cultivated mind to make excuses, but here we are faced with stem reality. The House knows that although I have been here at all times I have refrained from taking part in Debate. I have done so hoping against hope that something would be done. I do not mean a little "tuppenny ha'penny "action, but something that would foot the bill. We are spending millions, and I want to know what provision is being made for the folk who are blitzed and for those who may be blitzed.
People in England do not know anything about the housing conditions in my country. I have been fighting against them for 40 years. No attempt is being made by the Scottish Office to overhaul those conditions on a gigantic scale. We are talking in millions and are asking our young men to give up their lives. Surely I am not asking too much for those who are prepared to do and die. Whether or not this House or the country plays the game by them, they will play the game by Scotland. Dozens of families prefer to live in a school because it is nice and clean and because it gives them the chance of a quiet room where they can sleep before they go to work to produce what is essential for the defence of the country. These are the conditions, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest), who is now an officer in the British Army, will appreciate why I said that all was not being done that might be done for the folk who are blitzed. I hope that I have said enough—it has been pulled out of me—to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will tackle the question of evacuation in a method and with a system that will fit the situation. The situation is

abnormal, and I assert that up to date that has not been done.

Mr. Lipson: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will forgive me if I do not follow him in dealing with the local problems to which he has properly drawn attention. I can assure him, however, that what he has said has won the sympathy of the House. We are proud that we live in a country where these things can be said in the House of the representatives of the people. It has been suggested—although my hon. Friend was careful to say that he did not associate himself with that point of view— that conditions could not be worse under Hitler. I do not subscribe to that view, but if these conditions existed in Germany —and, believe me, they do—the people of Germany are not allowed to be told about them during war-time. Now that attention has been drawn to it the House has sufficient confidence in the Secretary of State to believe that it will be dealt with.
May I come back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)? I always listen to him with great pleasure. The House is grateful to him for having introduced the subject of evacuation to-day, for the matter of his speech and for the manner in which he dealt with this important problem. He showed a sympathetic understanding and knowledge of this problem which are generally appreciated. In particular, I want to associate myself with his plea that the county councils rather than the smaller rural and urban district councils should be made the billeting authorities. It is argued that the reason why the smaller authorities should deal with it is that they have the special local knowledge, but the officers of the county council also have that knowledge. They also have the advantage over the clerks to the smaller authorities that they are freer to take the appropriate action which the situation demands, because they are not under any obligation, financial or otherwise, to some of the people with whom they would have to deal. It is difficult for the clerk of a small district council to take strong action against some of the people in the district when his living may be dependent upon them and when in another capacity he may be their family solicitor. Therefore, I suggest that consideration should be given to the county councils being made


billeting authorities, particularly as the county councils have the officers and staff to deal with this difficult problem.
With regard to such evacuation as has taken place, I think that in a large measure it has been a great success. I am sorry that the evacuation and billeting of the school children were not given over to the Board of Education- Even at this stage it is worth while, I think, to consider whether the education authorities are not the proper people to deal with the billeting of school children. They know the children, and they are able better to decide the type of home into which particular children would best fit. The best argument for further evacuation is that those already evacuated are comfortable and happy in their new surroundings, and the more widely those conditions prevail the less necessity there will be to resort to compulsory evacuation. I do not envy a Minister who has to decide whether to impose compulsory evacuation or not. I think we all agree that compulsion is something which must be held in reserve. Situations may arise which may make it necessary to impose compulsory evacuation in certain areas, but the Minister is wise in not taking that drastic step before he is convinced that the voluntary principle has failed.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the kindness which has been shown in many instances by people in the reception areas to the children under their care, and perhaps I may be allowed to mention a particular form of kindness to a section of the evacuees with whom I can very properly deal. Evacuation has created problems for all who have been evacuated, but perhaps there is no section of the community for whom it has created greater problems than for the Jewish people. They have had to go to areas where no Jews, or very few Jews, had lived before and where there were no facilities for their religious instruction or for the observances of their religious life, and all Jews appreciate what has been done by non-Jews to assist Jewish children, in particular, to be faithful to their religious observances and to live their own religious life. In some instances clergymen of the Church of England and the ministers of the other Christian communities, haying found that it was not possible to arrange for the teaching of Hebrew to

the Jewish children, have done it themselves, and that at a time when they had many other calls upon them. I know one lady, the mother of an hon. Member of this House, who lives not very far from my constituency who every Sunday afternoon has a small number of Jewish children at her house to read to them the Old Testament. That sort of thing is going on up and down the country and it is tremendously appreciated by the Jewish community. Speaking as a Jew, I can say that we hope that what has been done will result in a better understanding between Jews and non-Jews. Having shared a common danger and helped one another in this way, we hope that all may understand one another better.
Many local authorities have done excellent work, either by themselves or through voluntary associations, in providing certain amenities to make the evacuees happier in their new conditions. On the other hand, there are local authorities which have been content simply to arrange billets and then leave the evacuees to their own resources. I ask the Minister to get particulars showing which authorities have not provided communal centres or made communal feeding arrangements such as the more public-spirited authorities have provided, and to urge on them the importance of taking action in the matter. Very properly, attention has been drawn to the fact that many of the reception areas are already full, and that it is necessary to have a survey to find out where there is any reserve accommodation. In my own area a survey was recently made. Forms were sent out to all householders in which they had to answer certain questions. I should like to know whether that action was followed up. Many people have been most helpful in receiving evacuees into their homes, but there are still a great many people who do not realise the magnitude of the problem or the sacrifices which those who live in the more fortunate areas must be called upon to make.
If the problem is looked at from that point of view I believe it will be found that there is still a considerable reserve of accommodation available in reception areas. It is a great thing in these days to live in a safe area, and those who live there should realise their advantages and also, their responsibilities to those living under less fortunate conditions. If they would try to


put themselves in the place of those whom they are called upon to receive into their homes, I think they would estimate their ability to take in more people much more generously than they have done in the past. I hope that the Minister will not assume that the reception areas are full and cannot take any more people, and that every practical step will be taken to see that the capacity of reception areas is utilised to the full.
In many areas a difficulty has been created by reason of the fact that certain buildings and houses which were requisitioned by Government Departments are still not being used. They were taken over at the outset of the war because of a Cabinet decision to be ready for use in certain contingencies, but those contingencies have not arisen, and yet those places, many of which would house a large number of people, remain unoccupied. It is difficult to convince people that they must give up some of their scanty accommodation when they know that this other accommodation is not being used. Those who are responsible for reserving so many of these buildings ought now to ask themselves, in the light of present conditions, whether they cannot release at least some of them. Further, it is difficult to persuade private people to take in more evacuees when it is known that there are still more than 700 vacant places in the school camps which have been built. School camps are surely the best places to which to send evacuated children, because there we could provide that communal life from which they derive the greatest possible benefit. Where children are together in large numbers they are likely to be much happier than when they are with families in which there are no other children of their own age's. I urge the Board of Education to see that all the accommodation in school camps is used to the full.
I think this Debate has been extremely useful. It was necessary that the evacuation problem should be reviewed in the light of present conditions. I will conclude by drawing attention to one problem which I think will interest the Minister of Labour. At present the local authority have power to requisition houses for evacuees, but I know of a town, about which particulars have been sent to my right hon. Friend, to which men went to work in aircraft and other fac-

tories and had difficulty in obtaining accommodation. In one case, 14 people live in a small council house. They discovered for themselves three houses not occupied by their owners, and they went to the local billeting officer and asked him to use his requisitioning powers to give them one of the houses which would suit their needs. He answered that he had not the power to requisition houses for workers, but that if they had been official evacuees, he could have requisitioned a house. I hope that such powers will be taken. It is every bit as necessary to house workers from the factories as to house evacuees or anybody else. Those who come to such areas to work in the war-effort factories have every right to be given satisfactory accommodation, and it is wrong to be able to point to three houses standing empty, at a time when people are crying out for accommodation. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject and for the way in which he dealt with its problems.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sure that the House has listened with interest to the speeches made during this Debate by English and Welsh Members on the problem of evacuation. I leave aside the points raised by those who spoke for Scotland to be dealt with later by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I venture to rise now because I have made arrangements to go to a Northern blitzed area for a conference to-night and to-morrow. I do not intend discourtesy to any hon. Member for England and Wales in rising at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of any other points that axe made.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for his speech and for its constructive tone and the perfect understanding he showed of many of the problems of the reception areas.
I have been singularly fortunate during the time I have been at the Ministry of Health because of the intense efforts made by my predecessor in dealing with London problems, especially problems affecting shelters. Problems arising inside the shelters were not under his supervision until 3rd January, but I can inform the House that no night was too dark or too dangerous for my predecessor to be going about last winter, looking into things for himself, so that he might be quite sure


that everything was done to carry out positive policies for maintaining the health of the people. His work gave me a great advantage from the beginning. Day after day, when in London, I have had to give attention to London's problems, and I shall do so regularly, but it has been possible for me to spend all but two weekends since becoming Minister of Health in the Regions. Up to now I have personally visited 10 of the n Regions, and before Whitsuntide is out I shall have visited all the Regions. I have not only had the advantage of discussion with the Regional Commissioners, but of contact with my own staffs, and with the local authorities who are carrying out so much of the work. I have given half my time in every Region to the problems of the reception areas, and I have visited all the numerous kinds of institutions there—and they now make a very long list, especially those concerned with the well-being and welfare of mothers and children in those areas. The work done by my predecessor has been of great advantage to me, and I think it right to him to say so now. The House will, therefore, see that I do not speak merely from a Departmental point of view or, as a Minister who has been reading papers. Of course, I have had the advantage of papers as all Ministers have, but I have done my best to look at these questions on the spot, and I shall continue to do so.
Let me say one or two things about them. I welcomed the tributes paid by the hon. Member for Llanelly to the people in the reception areas. I agree with him, but all generalisations must be approximate. They cannot be more, but if you were to ask me for a loose generalisation, I would say that a great social revolution has taken place. My task and that of my colleagues and that of the Members of this House who, by their contributions are co-operating with us, is to turn that revolution into an evolutionary movement so that it may be of a permanent value to the nation. I would say also that, in my judgment, it is putting it rather low to say that 80 per cent. of the reception of evacuees has been a success against all odds, for hon. Members must realise that there has been a fundamental break with the strongest things in human nature, love of husband, of wife and of home. That is what I

meant when I spoke of the odds, and I repeat that, notwithstanding, 80 per cent. of the movement on the reception side has been a success.
In answer to the constructive criticisms that have been made, I would say at once that our task in the future is to make sure that the problems preventing full success, and producing sometimes partial success and sometimes failure in the remaining 20 per cent., are sought out, tackled and solved, and that the word "impossible" is replaced by the word "nevertheless." However hard the problem, we all say together, "Nevertheless, if human capacity, skill and good will can solve it, it shall be solved." That is not only my view; it is the view of all my colleagues and of the Regional Commissioners of the regions in England and Wales. I have not had contact with the successor to my right hon. Friend as Scottish Regional Commissioner in that capacity, but I know they hold similar views. It is our view, and the view of those co-operating with the Regional Commissioners who have general oversight in the regions, that the maximum use must be made of the local machinery in order that, in coping with the terrible experiences that modern war is bound to bring, the maximum value is derived from constructive suggestions. I have said many times during the last few months that we want to do everything we can before the summer ends to tie up loose ends, to improvise or plan in order to carry out the new proposals and, more than that, to take as a whole this machine, which has worked remarkably well, and tune it up, so that, when the winter comes, we can make sure that we can help our people to stand firm, as they will in any case, by producing the maximum amount of health and happiness. When I use the word "happiness" I think of education in the main.
I would say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), that we shall do the utmost possible in the times through which we are passing. I thought it right to say these few general words to show what my attitude of mind is. Let us now take the broad problem that my hon. Friend raised. He first of all inquired about coordination. As he said, it is a queer word and much misused. I remember an acquaintance of mine who always used to


say that whenever he heard a man use the word "co-ordination" he knew there was some roguery about. I find myself in a measure of agreement with that, and therefore I will gladly fall in with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, who said that we wanted co-operation. I do not wish to say one word which would prejudice a really balanced discussion on the big issues of machinery which will take place shortly, and if I do not deal with one or two of the issues that have been raised, I hope the House will understand that, in view of the forthcoming two days' Debate, it is important that I should say nothing to prevent the House as a whole taking a well-balanced and detailed view on that occasion. As the House knows, there is, of course, co-operation at the top by all the Departments concerned. At least three mornings a week, and frequently more often, all the Departments meet in a certain Committee to discuss both day-by-day happenings and any alterations of policy which may be required. There is also thoroughgoing co-operation in the Regional machine.
When we come to the question of accommodation there are two problems. It is in regard to accommodation that we have the agreement to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) referred, namely, an arrangement through the Ministry of Works and Buildings whereby, in case of emergency, the Civil Departments do not impinge on the Service Departments and vice versa. That, of course, may not prevent a particular request about a particular place, and I often find that when I have persuaded, say, a rural district council to equip a building as a children's hostel some development on the Service side may cause the Service Minister to come along and say he wants it for his own purposes, and in such a case we have to prove our claim before the appropriate tribunal.

Sir Patrick Hannon: What is the appropriate tribunal?

Mr. Brown: The appropriate tribunal is the Ministerial Committee which settles the priority in these matters, or, in the last resort, if two Ministers disagree, there is only one tribunal, namely, the War Cabinet. I do not want to be drawn into a discussion on questions of machinery for the reason I have mentioned, and will do

my best to answer points which have been raised without infringing on the forthcoming general Debate. The extension of the demand for accommodation by the expanding Forces—not only the Army— and the great developments in the movement of war workers have raised new problems in the matter of accommodation. At the moment I cannot say that we have any cut-and-dried plan. For weeks we have been discussing inter-departmentally in what way we can best arrange the pool of accommodation in order to obtain the maximum co-ordination on the spot and to avoid the local difficulties which, as my hon. Friend knows, often occur.
On the issue of vulnerable, neutral, and evacuation areas, I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend about neutral areas. It has been of very great advantage that that first distinction was made. It is an advantage to have certain areas—which may become target areas—into which we do not send children from evacuated towns. I must make this broad statement as the basis of present and potential evacuation policy: since there must be a reception area for every evacuation area, and since this is a small country, it is quite impossible to have any evacuation policy which will make every target area an evacuation area. It just cannot be done. The accommodation is not there, and all those who discuss alterations must have that in their minds. There are certain parts of the country where the problem of density is more difficult than in others.
The situation has never been static, and, as the House knows, we have made many alterations. I will not mention places, because in my judgment the mentioning of localities in this connection is fraught with great danger to those localities. Certain alterations have been made in the light of post-blitz experience, and as far as is possible I do not intend that the German air staff shall obtain the advantage, by statements made here, of knowledge that our own Air Staff would give a great deal to get. But alterations have been made and can be made, although it is not easy.
Since this problem is rooted in the conditions of family life, however you solve it, even if by a compulsory scheme, the feelings are there.

Mr. Kirkwood: And rightly there.

Mr. Brown: I agree, and it is an understanding of that that has made the Government decide that a voluntary scheme was the right one. I will, however, say this one sentence to my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest). He should not press too far his remarks about the report to which he referred. If he looks at the shading on the map attached to it he will see that if he or I were drawing that map now, the shading would be entirely different. There would be no distinction between East and West. It will perhaps ease his mind a little if I say that we have not overlooked the possibility of certain areas receiving more than mere bombing, and I mean that in a particular as well as a general way.

Dr. Guest: I did not say that the report was verbally inspired, but only that its general conclusions were correct.

Mr. Brown: I have said nothing about that. It is marvellous how accurate and far-seeing that report was. That is why the main bases of evacuation policy have not now to be changed and, in my judgment, will not need to be changed.
And now about zones. I have, of course, heard this proposition put in various forms, such, for instance, as a belt round the coast, although I gather that that is not my hon. Friend's proposal. His proposal is that we should have what might be called a "cushion" area, although, since he mentioned a width of 25 or 30 miles, I would like to ask him to do a little map work and see what this suggestion would mean in terms of billeting in the areas concerned.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I put forward that suggestion mainly because I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that there are special possibilities to be borne in mind in regard to those areas.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, and the House, must understand that we are not working to a plan, and carrying out a plan- merely because we have got one. I am sick of those people who mention the word "plan"and think they have solved the problem, who mention the word ''region" and think they have solved the problem, who mention "compulsion" or "co-ordination"and think they have solved the problem. There are many of them, and some of them write what are

thought by the uninformed to be learned letters about the matter, but they have not solved the problem. We are not in any mild mood about this; great things have been done.

Dr. Guest: Are you getting fierce?

Mr. Brown: Yes, 7 am; I have hardly begun yet; and the House will notice that it is not from a Departmental brief.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: We are enjoying it.

Mr. Brown: Thank you very much, We are not operating a plan merely because there was a plan drawn up by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and his colleagues. Alterations have been and will be made, and ought and must be made to meet real needs. As to the essence of the problem which my hon. Friend raises, I would say that we have always kept a certain reserve of billets under the original plan. But when my hon. Friend called for a survey, he was not without knowledge that we have been acting. We have had a general survey; and in areas which have particular features—for problems arise in areas which have no large scale urban hinterland, and not always in regions which have a number of large towns to give support easily—we have instituted not merely a general survey, but special and intensive surveys; and we shall go further. First, we want to see what reserve we have. Now I could not agree more than I do with those who say that if there are large houses in districts which can be used, they should, and must, be used. But I do not think that the House recognises how far we have gone. We have requisitioned 27,402 houses. Hon. Members will see that the requisitioning powers have been used to a great degree. [Interruption] Yes, that is for England and Wales.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: What proportion of those requisitioned houses are actually in use? Is that the total requisitioned for evacuation purposes, or for all public purposes?

Mr. Brown: I am talking about my own Departmental problems. I could, if I had time, give an analysis of how those houses are being used, and for what purposes. Perhaps I will do so in the next


Debate. There has been a very considerable move. I will say two things about large houses. They can be very deceptive. I know of large houses—I am thinking of one with 80 rooms—which have been requisitioned, and it was then found that the sanitary and water accommodation were not unimpeachable. It may be that, for that reason, a requisitioned house has been released from requisitioning—I do not know the case referred to by the hon. Member. I will take the simplest case, of a war-time nursery for 40 children. That needs a good house. I cannot allow 40 children to go into the house without being sure that the sanitary and water arrangements are as nearly perfect as they can be got. There is nothing more dangerous than getting large numbers of young children together under one roof. I must have 10 nurses, for it is a day-and-night job; three or four domestic staff; and equipment, consisting of over 4,000 articles in several hundred categories. That is what is required for one of those hostels, of which we have hundreds in use. It is not enough to requisition the house; you have to equip it and run it; and the problem of domestic staff is rapidly becoming a problem of essential work. When you are dealing with hostels and hospitals the problem is indeed formidable. But this is my intention. If, in the course of collating the information I have received in my personal investigations, I come to the conclusion that I want in any region a man or men, or a woman or women, equipped with powers to go into a small district where, perhaps, the local billeting officer does not feel that he can tackle certain people, I shall see that it is done. I can imagine no worse feeling than the feeling of inequality if working-class people are giving up their little homes and large houses are not being taken. I am glad that this matter has been raised to-day.
I cannot agree that the small reception unit is necessarily inefficient. Some of the most efficient units that I have met with have been in district rural councils. From the beginning, the intention was to use the local councils, because they have housing powers and authority, such as no other body has, to carry out the arrangements. But the county councils were requested to act as co-ordinating authorities so that if a small council wanted aid they got it. I will go further.
In the light of our experience, a very interesting movement has begun in one area—and we shall follow it up—to obtain mutual support through a joint committee of small councils which may be faced, as the hinterland of a blitzed town, with common problems, and may need to work them out on a common basis.
I will take one county, Yorkshire. In two days there I went to two kinds of reception area. One consisted of a couple of very small flourishing manufacturing towns, the pride of Yorkshire, well equipped towns, with not a wholly working-class population, but that fine sturdy mixture of people that one finds in Yorkshire towns. I found experiments going on to deal with problems of mothers and children and of difficult children. One of our greatest problems is the child who cannot be billeted because he is a difficult, or problem, child, or because he is what is known in the language of the films as a tough guy. The next day I went down to a rural community of mining villages, where there are no varieties of social status, where all the houses, except for perhaps a couple, are similar. I found there a lady worker, who had been chairman of the district council and who was also the leader of the local Women's Voluntary Services. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the work done all over this country by the women of that great organisation. They have over 100,000 workers engaged on this job to-day over and above the other categories engaged in it.
That gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem. When I talked about our problem to that lady, together with the local district council, it left me with the feeling that, however large the city or the county is, it would be a shame to take away the responsibility from that rural council. It is not the case that the large organisation is always the most efficient for any purpose. While I am in sympathy with the desire of my hon. Friend to get aid to those smaller districts which perhaps are not so efficient as others, I do not think that he is on good ground in generalising that the small rural district council is necessarily not efficient. Some of the most efficient organisations in this country are small, and I pay that tribute with all my heart, as a result of my own observation.
The problem of mothers and children, of course, is not easy. I have the figures here for which the hon. Lady was asking. The number of houses requisitioned is 27,402. That number includes the number used for the housing of London mothers and children, 2,906; for the homeless, 21,726; for unorganised refugees, 233; for difficult children, 344; for schoolchildren—that is, educational hostels—132, in addition to the 30 camps under the National Camps Corporation; for maternity homes, 166; and for sick bays and infectious hospitals, 209. The House will see that this statement is worth while, because we have had this thing more before us than some people who have discussed the question from the central or evacuation area point of view sometimes realise.

Miss Rathbone: I take it that these places are actually in use?

Mr. Brown: I am talking about premises requisitioned and in use. The movement is going on rapidly. For instance, I and my colleague, the President of the Board of Education, have been very busy in recent weeks seeing what we can do to organise more effectively the welfare and care of little children under five. And not only that, we are urging the authorities to appoint welfare officers, trained, skilled, sympathetic and understanding women, to follow up the problem of welfare not merely for children and mothers, but for the mothers themselves. There are 483 communal feeding centres, including 114 schools, at the moment, and the movement is extending rapidly. But, I would charge the public with one word of warning. The communal feeding centre may not be the appropriate instrument in some particular place, and I hope that people will not make a fetish of this thing. One thing may suit one district and one another, but the movement, as the House will see from these figures, is going along rapidly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft raised an issue with which I am not going to deal to-day except in a sentence or two. My responsibility in the Government plan is to find accommodation at all times and in all circumstances for those who are in the priority classes under the Government Scheme, and for the homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft is going further

and considering the "in-and-out" movement of people who have still homes. I would only make this remark about that. We are asked to organise that sort of thing, but I would ask Members to think of the security end as well as of the effect upon morale. I will say no more about that matter.

Mr. Loftus: The suggestion that I put forward—though probably I did not make myself sufficiently clear—was that in areas —I am thinking of certain areas where the working-class live close to docks, where 20 per cent. of the homes have been destroyed and others are liable to destruction—provision should be made to house these people in adequate circumstances during the coming winter so that they can go to and from their work.

Mr. Brown: I am pointing out that that is the aim implied by the surveys that we are making and the arrangements we; are going to make. I understand that the hon. Member referred to certain big places, and I was not referring to them alone. Perhaps it is his fault or mine. I do not know. I understood him to be asking me to accept responsibility for those who still have homes. If he did not do that, the point does not arise and I will say no more about it.

Mr. Loftus: This is a very important subject, and I will give the name of the city to my right hon. Friend if he desires it. The 80 per cent are damaged houses, at any rate, many of them, probably half of them, or are liable to damage before the winter, and what preparations for that contingency are being made within a distance of two, three or four miles for the accommodation of the people?

Mr. Brown: Then, I did understand what my hon. Friend said. If he asks me what preparation is being made for them, if and when they become homeless, my answer is, that we shall not fail, in weighing up the lessons of the new concentrated technique, to see that no homeless person goes without accommodation.

Mr. Loftus: That is not the point.

Mr. Brown: It is for the very purpose I have mentioned that we are making the survey and I said I would not discuss the other issue now because I understand that it is to be one of the major issues in the Debate.

Mr. Loftus: It is a vital issue.

Mr. Brown: My lion. Friend agrees that it is a vital issue, but he must understand that the Government, equally with him or any other hon. Member, know that it is a vital issue, and for this reason we want it to be dealt with in the major forthcoming Debate and not to-day. He asked about the use of house property, and what he said will be considered.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Cheltenham paid his tribute to the reception areas because it is true. There has been wonderful understanding on the whole, although, as every Member from an evacuation area knows, some of the problems that reception areas have had to meet in individual cases have been very trying indeed.
I have one other word to say, and it is this: When my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly talks about the feelings of people going down to lovely Wales, it is not only lovely Wales about which they have feelings. I was in a certain mining district which has not many claims to loveliness, but it has one advantage, a number of streams. I was discussing matters in a communal centre there where there were about 100 evacuated mothers from London, and I asked them, "Will you tell me your outstanding impression since you have been down in this district?" I got this reply from everyone of them. They all agreed that it was "running water." It was a very interesting and indeed profound comment—running water, streams. That is what the women said, at any rate-that was their outstanding feeling. I am sure that, working together, we can make what has been, in my judgment in the great majority of cases a great success, even more successful by the constructive arrangements that we shall make during this summer for next winter, and can secure that some of the problems with which my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft is concerned are solved, so that no homeless person in any circumstances does not get adequate and proper accommodation.

Mrs. Tate: The right hon. Gentleman has just used the words "running water," and they were very appropriate words. I could indeed have told him how much they mean to a great many of the women in this country who

have lived in districts where there should have been an ample supply of water but where, every summer, year after year, the water supply has entirely run out. The right hon. Gentleman knows, because I have written to him, that in many villages in my Division, we have had these conditions every year where the water supply has been so inadequate that there has not been enough water laid on to the schools to allow the teachers to draw water to drink. Into these districts, always denuded in summer-time of water, you have evacuated hundreds and in some cases thousands of additional women and children, but nothing, in the district in which I am interested at any rate, has been done to increase the water supply. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility whatever for this; he has inherited this extraordinarily difficult problem. The evacuation has had to be arranged in very rapid circumstances, but I urge that in these exceptional circumstances we should take exceptional and unconventional steps. I feel that it is time to use every sort of information and that, if necessary, we should employ expert dowsers to locate wells, which could easily be put into order so that there might be additional water supplies in these villages.
In one case—I sent particulars to the right hon. Gentleman the other day—an enormous military camp was set up in my division on the top of the watershed. That village has always been liable to be short of water in summer, and when that camp was set up no arrangements whatever were made for additional water supplies to it. Members do not need to be told by me that sewage rapidly percolates through the surface of a watershed and pollutes the water. In this village there is already a grave water shortage, and such water as there is, is, I fear, liable to be very seriously contaminated. We have a sufficiently large number of problems connected with the health services of the nation, and a sufficiently heavy strain on them, without having epidemics break out in rural areas due to contaminated water, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give me some assurance that, no matter how unconventional or exceptional the steps might be, something will be done to see that these water supplies are rendered more adequate before we are many months older.
We are asking farmers to produce extra food; it is absolutely imperative that extra food should be produced, yet if there is a water shortage, beasts are liable to rush from one end of a field to another bellowing because they have nothing to drink. That happened last summer, and this year conditions are far more serious. After six weeks' drought we had, thank God—and I say "thank God" in all reverence—some rain during the last few days. Financially, this has been worth many thousands of pounds to many farmers, but it has been worth far more to the food supplies of this country. But that will not avoid the difficulties of the coming summer. Only this morning I had a letter from a teacher in Wales, who said that doubtless I knew that many children from a part of my division, on the outskirts of Bristol, had been evacuated to a certain Welsh village. She asked if I could do anything to help them, because the water shortage there was already so great that for many hours each day the supply had to be entirely cut off. Many small children are, perhaps, only too glad that they do not have to wash too much, but it is not a case of having to wash. It is absolutely vital, if you are to maintain the health of a child, that it should be taught to drink plenty of fresh cold water. If a child gets into the habit of drinking too little water, apart from any danger of a contaminated supply, you may affect its health throughout its life. Both drinking and eating can be very largely matters of habit, and it is a vital thing that children should be encouraged to drink a proper amount of water.
I do not wish to deal with the many aspects of this problem, because we shall have a full day's Debate in the near future, but I considered that this question of water supply was so urgent and vital that I must voice it now. We have no excuse for the way in which we have left our rural communities without water. I represent a division in Somerset which is not a county where there is any lack of rainfall. You can walk about in the middle of summer on large areas of swampy ground, and yet in villages a mile or two away you cannot get in a reasonable supply of water. It is disgraceful how we have neglected this matter in the past; we must take steps to deal with

it now by making reservoirs in fields for beasts and by sinking wells for human beings. We must be sure that there is enough water for everybody, so that health and morale can be maintained. The Minister said that in the main evacuation had been a great success, and I heartily subscribe to that view. I know the intense dislike which many housewives have at sharing, not so much her home as her kitchen with another woman. An extraordinarily difficult problem is created when two women have to share one kitchen. All praise to them, then, for what they have done so far. It is difficult for a housewife who takes an infinite pride in her kitchen to have to share it with a stranger who, perhaps, does not manage things quite so well as herself. It places a great strain on friendship and good fellowship. Nevertheless, in the main evacuation has been a success. It has taught hundreds of thousands of people to appreciate country life and given them opportunities which they otherwise would not have had, but if we allow the water shortage to continue, far from placing happy memories of the country in, the minds of mothers, we shall drive them to one desire—to get back to the towns where, at least, there are the ordinary amenities of life.

Sir Percy Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has raised this question of water supply, because it is one which vitally affects rural areas. I had the honour of representing for four or five years the constituency she now represents, and I know the problem is urgent. However, we must put the blame on the right shoulders. When the matter was first raised we did manage to get a certain amount of co-operation from the Treasury, and the rural district councils and other local authorities started to prepare large-scale schemes for large areas of the country. If those schemes had been carried through, they would have gone a long way towards solving the problem. But what happened? After a limited figure was reached, the Treasury came down with a heavy hand and stopped grants, with the consequence that the schemes had to be scrapped. The Rural District Councils' Association and those concerned made urgent representation to the Treasury and others to deal with this problem and the sewerage problem, which


is closely associated with it. Unless the two are linked together, in the mind of the Treasury as well as the local authorities, you cannot solve this water problem, and I hope that the Minister—although it is not within his particular sphere—in considering the immediate policy as well as the ultimate long-term policy will face these two problems and see to it that sufficient money is obtained to put through schemes that are already in existence to a large degree, and which would be the effective means of helping to solve this problem. I am sure that I speak for most Members of the House when I say that we listened with satisfaction to the speech of the Minister. It was both vigorous and practical. My right hon. Friend has had the good sense to visit various typical areas of the country, and he- has told us of his impressions.

Mr. Kirkwood: That cannot be said about my folk.

Sir P. Hurd: The hon. Member lives in a distant region which I have often visited and enjoyed, but I am speaking about the position in England. The Minister has said that the big question of the machinery of local government will be discussed in detail on a later occasion, but I am glad that he took the immediate opportunity of giving us the results of his inquiries as to the machinery that now exists. He spoke of the splendid work in connection with evacuation and other problems that has been done by the rural district councils. There is a feeling in some quarters of the House that the rural district councils are a sort of backwater remnant and do not count. That is a most mischievous and fallacious idea. One has only to attend the annual conferences of rural district councils from all parts of England and Wales to realise what effective work those councils are doing, giving infinite time and labour, for the most part unpaid, and with a zeal and devotion that are worthy of our admiration. I am glad that the Minister said that, considering the local experience that they bring to bear on local problems with such enthusiasm and efficiency, it would be a shame if in any future rearrangement of local administration we were to neglect that local knowledge, experience, and enthusiasm. I am sure that when the matter is examined at close quarters, the Minister's statement will be appreciated by far more hon. Members than at present.
Briefly, the basic problem—if I may use the word "basic" after what the Prime Minister said yesterday—is the financial resources. What has happened concerning water and sewage is happening in the case of other vital matters affecting rural areas. They are not given sufficient financial resources to enable them to make full use of their local experience, knowledge, and contacts. If the question of rural administration is to be properly handled, the aid which is to be available to the local authorities must be faced far more boldly than at present. I am glad the Minister has spoken as he has done about rural administration, because, if we are really earnest in our belief in representative institutions, we must realise that the principle of representation must go from the centre right down to the local areas. We cannot hope to have an effective democracy in this country unless people in the rural areas feel that they have an active and vital part in the administration of the districts in which they reside.
It is no good going into the rural parts of my county, Wiltshire, and talking to people about Whitehall, telling them that there is to be some supreme authority in Whitehall and that, through a Regional Commissioner or otherwise that authority is going to do this, that and the other thing, turning their lives upside down. They will say, "Thank you for nothing" They want to have their share in, and to use their experience in, the administration of those things which so closely affect their locality. Nor is it any good telling many people in my constituency, for instance, to go to Trowbridge; they do not want to go to the county authority about matters immediately concerning their homes and daily lives. They want to go to the rural district council; they want to see their local representative on the rural district council and ask what is to be done about a certain road, or a certain water supply, or housing or some other matter closely affecting them in their homes and their daily lives. They want to be able to tackle their representative, and if they are not satisfied with him, to vote against him at the next local election. It is the local element in our administration which has to be nurtured. Of course, I realise that we live in times in which we must have—a word which the Minister deplored —concentration, co-ordination,


joint effort; but as the Minister wisely said, there are many cases in which joint effort can take place without damaging or abolishing local pride, patriotism, enthusiasm and co-operation. I sincerely hope that in any future arrangements the local aspect will be kept in view.
I want now to refer to the difficulties in rural areas that are caused by evacuation. I am concerned with a reception area, and one that is, unfortunately, also a favourite reception area for the military, the Air Ministry, and the central authorities concerned with our defence. The consequence is that in some districts in my constituency there is a very difficult problem of overcrowding. There is overcrowding in the homes because of billeting, there is overcrowding in the shops, a shortage of supplies to local residents because of the priority claims which are granted to those in uniform in regard to many commodities, and the problem of education is greatly intensified by the incursion of people from the evacuation areas. I know that the Minister recognises the difficulty which he has seen at first hand in his visits to rural areas, but I think hon. Members ought to realise that in certain areas, such as my own area, there comes a saturation point. These enormous problems are being faced resolutely and, on the whole, with much success by the local authorities, and I hope that they are being faced with the same resolution at headquarters in London.
I should like to pay a tribute to the way in which the evacuees have been received into the country homes. I do not know of anything to match the consideration with which householders and cottagers are putting up with all sorts of inconveniences in having women and children brought into their homes from town areas, disturbing the whole course and character of their own home life. In putting up with these inconveniences, they have shown a remarkable amount of restraint, kindness and consideration, and in doing so have helped part of the evacuation scheme to be a success. However, I think a point is being reached where the matter must be considered anew. There must be other areas in England besides my own area where far more could be done in the way of relieving those villages which are

becoming overcrowded. Last week, at a railway station in my constituency, I had a chat with a London railwayman. He told me that he worked on the London Underground, and that after having a train every three minutes, it was quite an experience to wait for hours for a train. He told me that he had come down to see his children who were billeted in the district; he said they were getting on fine; there had been a great change in their health and happiness and outlook through living in the countryside. But he said that his wife was desperately anxious to come down, bringing her sister with her, to live with the children.
He had been trying to find accommodation, but there was nothing to be obtained; he had been to the town council and the rural district council, but there was not a corner anywhere. I do not know whether the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), and referred to sympathetically by the Minister, would help to meet that problem; but it seems to me that such a method might be a means of providing for a partial resumption of home life for such people. If something could be done in this way, it would be a great relief for those who are feeling rather oppressed by the separation of parents and children, by the partial breaking up of their home life, and the general disturbance of the whole of their ordinary routine. After all, the future of this country at this critical time depends upon the maintenance of the morale of the people. You cannot maintain the morale of the people unless you also take care of their physical health. There is nothing more detrimental to the maintenance of that morale than the breaking-up of homes, and that should be prevented as far as is possible in our plans for now and the future.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like at the outset to draw attention to the fact that the first Bill which dealt with defence was introduced in 1937. The then Home Secretary brushed aside the question of evacuation as being of little consequence, and I took occasion at that time to state that one of the most outstanding problems was preparation for the evacuation of people from crowded areas which were bound to be a mark for enemy aeroplanes. I added, that if the military and the A.R.P. Department did


not understand this question, then they were incapable of doing their job. That was in 1937, and they have had all this time to make preparations and ensure that if any trouble came, there would be the minimum of suffering and disorganisation so far as the masses of the people in these areas were concerned. Quite a lot has been said about the situation in various parts of Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) made a very striking speech on the question of the preparations which have been made for dealing with evacuation in Scotland.
A sort of experimental evacuation was carried out in the winter of 1939–1940, but it was the most farcical thing I have ever known. Women were encouraged to go with their children to various small villages or seaside resorts. In the spring of last year I went to one of these seaside resorts, situated on the West of Scotland, where a number of women and children had been billeted during the winter. The landladies of the boarding-houses had been quite willing to take them during the winter for so much per billet, but when the spring came they wanted the room for summer boarders and made life like hell for the evacuees. They turned them out in the morning, and these people had to remain outside the whole day; this was at Easter, when the weather was very cold in this particular part. We used to meet these people with their children in the streets, and they told us that all kinds of insulting references were made to them by the boarding-house keepers. They were called "vacs" and "tinks" and (hat sort of thing. The women and children were simply driven back to the cities, and as a result they had a natural horror for anything which suggested evacuation. Time and again I have seen these unfortunate people who have been bombed out of their homes walking about the streets. You can always tell, and you can hear people saying as you pass them in the street, "That is a crowd of evacuees' Often they "cock a snook" at them. There should be no need for anything like that, because in many parts of Scotland there is adequate housing accommodation.
I remember having my attention drawn to a case of a mother and two children who were put into a cottage with the people who were living there because that cottage happened to come within an

evacuation area, whereas on the other side of the road, because that part happened to be in a neutral area, there was a small mansion or large villa in which only two people were living. It was just a step across from the cottage to the other house, which contained only two people. That sort of thing has been going on. There are whole hosts of houses in the country. districts and in the Highlands which have been left unoccupied, and the situation has become so serious that it is obvious that some action will have to be taken. I was speaking the other day to some of the responsible people in Dumbartonshire. They have had a very big job to do, and I must confess that they were very enthusiastic about the Secretary of State for Scotland. He had attended a meeting and had told them that there would be no limit in expenditure or in the taking over of houses in the country and in the Highlands. That, roughly, was the idea they gave to me, but I must say that they were very high in their praise for the Secretary of State for Scotland—I only wish I could be as high in my praise.
The question of billeting ought to have been put into operation long ago, and there should be no question of putting mothers and children into boarding-houses where they become a handicap to the boarding-house keeper who looks upon paying guests as her livelihood. These boarding-houses should have been taken over, with fair consideration given to the boarding-house keepers, as well as country houses, big mansions, and palaces. People could then be given accommodation under conditions which would develop all that is best and all that is homelike. I am certain that if action had been taken from the beginning, even before the war, much of the difficulty which has been experienced and much of the suffering which has been endured could have been avoided.

Mr. G. Strauss: I represent an evacuation area, and it is only fair to say that at the moment there is, on the whole, general satisfaction felt by "the people and the authorities in that area with the way in which evacuation is being handled. In the early days there were numerous complaints, most of which were fully justified, because the arrangements were chaotic and the whole scheme worked out extremely badly. I expressed my views very forcibly, both inside and


outside this House, especially on the arrangements for the reception of mothers and children in the reception areas. It therefore gives me all the more pleasure to be able to say now, that most of these difficulties have been smoothed out, and that there is general satisfaction with the present position, particularly in respect of children.
One of the few good things which have come out of the war is the fact that London children are being able to live for so long, and mostly under pleasant conditions, in the country. I find that parents of these children are delighted with the way they are treated, and I have had very few if any complaints about the treatment of the children. On the contrary, great gratitude is expressed on the part of the parents for the hospitality extended to the children. It is a hospitality not only on the part of the households in which the children are living, but very often also on the part of the community as a whole. In fact, one of the difficulties that arose during Christmas week was due to the community giving a treat to the evacuated children in which the local children did not participate. Very considerable friction, which lasted some time, followed because the evacuated children were getting a pleasure which children living normally in the area could not enjoy. The only difficulty—I cannot call it a complaint—which I have heard expressed by mothers comes from an anxiety that because those children are being treated so extremely well, and having such a good time in the country, it may not be easy when they return to London to get a happy family life resumed. That is an anxiety which is shared, I know, by many parents in London.
I would like to say one word about compulsion. I have never been one of those who advocate compulsory evacuation of children, but I am very disappointed that the compromise scheme proposed by the Government towards the end of last year has not been acted upon more fully. That scheme was that all children, or at any rate all those going to public shelters, should be examined by doctors and that any child who had suffered as a result of the blitz, or who in the opinion of the doctor was likely to suffer, should be sent out of London. The number sent out has been very small indeed. I asked a question about three

months after the scheme started as to how many children had been sent away, and the answer, I think, was 20. I believe that the scheme is not being so carefully and fully pursued as it ought to be. There are many children in London who should be evacuated on the ground that they are either suffering already or have been so debilitated that they are very likely to suffer in any further blitz. When one comes to the evacuation of mothers, the problem is not so simple or so satisfactory. There are many complaints from London areas resulting from difficulties which have arisen. I do not want to deal with the matter at length, because it is extremely complex. In many cases I think the trouble is due to the fact that women have found it difficult to get on with other families, and in many cases no doubt mothers with several children have been billeted under quite unsuitable conditions in old condemned property with no proper conveniences. That, however, is a very wide subject, which I cannot deal with in the few minutes at my disposal.
The particular points I want to mention are three minor difficulties in the scheme, which may seem very small and petty but which cause a great deal of trouble. In the first place, there is a difficulty affecting expectant mothers and small children. A mother has registered at a hospital and an arrangement has been made about her assessment—that is, about the amount which she will have to pay— but when the time comes she is sent out to some hospital in the country and finds that the assessment arranged with the London hospital no longer stands and that she will have to pay much more. That causes annoyance and friction. An even greater difficulty occurs when the woman is a wife of a soldier receiving dependant's allowance. When she leaves London to go to a hospital in the country, where she will be for at least four weeks and sometimes five or six weeks, she loses the extra rent allowance which she is entitled to as a London resident. She still has to pay the rent of her house during that time, but she does not get the additional Army allowance. That also causes friction. It is a matter, I suppose, not for the Ministry of Health, but for the War Office or the Ministry of Pensions, but I would like to know that it is being inquired into.
The third difficulty refers to the evacuation of toddlers. That arises, I take it,


because there is insufficient nursery school accommodation outside London. It constitutes a serious flaw in the evacuation scheme which should be attended to. It is particularly difficult for a woman who has a child one of say two years old and is going to have another baby. She wants to go out of London, but then the problem arises of what to do with the other child. She cannot take it with her, and she is in very great difficulty.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): If the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt for a moment, I should like to say that in a great number of cases we have hostels to which mothers can go before they go into the maternity hospital. They can take their toddlers with them, and the toddlers can remain in the hostel while the mother is in hospital.

Mr. Strauss: I am delighted to hear that, because in my area there has been great difficulty on that point, and we have not been able to arrange for toddlers to go away with the mother.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the mother will go out before the actual date at which she is going into a maternity hospital that can be arranged. Of course, some mothers prefer to wait, but if she will go out beforehand, the matter can be dealt with.

Mr. Strauss: How long before?

Miss Horsbrugh: There are varying times in different hostels.

Mr. Strauss: There is another point I should like to deal with, and that is the case of the chronic sick in London hospitals. There are several hundred chronic sick patients in London, who require little medical attention, but who do require quite a considerable nursing staff to look after them. They lie in bed in hospital, many of them have no friends or relatives in London, they would not mind being moved out, but no arrangements have been made to take them out of London and so set free hospital accommodation and free the nurses looking after them for other more important work. The difficulty, I know, is usually one of finding accommodation for these people, but if accommodation can be found, the attention that they would require outside London would be very little. They would require a doctor to see them, maybe, once

a week. It seems to me that hospital accommodation and nurses in London should not be unnecessarily occupied by people who ought to be outside London. I know the difficulties. I know that a very great many have already gone out, but I should like to see all these people go out as soon as possible. I admit that these are comparatively small points.
On the major problem, I am satisfied that evacuation as a whole is working very smoothly and is giving great satisfaction, particularly in respect of the children, to the people in London areas. I hope these minor points may be seen to, in which case I believe all the remaining difficulties will have been removed.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I hope my hon. Friend will not think that I am in the slightest degree discourteous to him if I suggest that some of the points he has raised will be more properly dealt with in the discussion which has been arranged on Civil Defence after our resumption. That also applies to some of the suggestions which have been made with regard to water supplies and sewage in rural areas, certainly most important matters without careful attention to which no large-scale or well organised evacuation policy can succeed.

Sir P. Hurd: One has to insist upon these matters whenever one can.

Mr. Johnston: I think it will be better if the hon. Gentleman gets a considered and detailed reply from the Minister who is responsible when it comes on. On the subject proper for the Debate to-day, the Minister of Health has already spoken, and I only rise to make a specific reply to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood). The tribute paid to the Scottish Office by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I hope rather relieved the strictures which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs saw fit to level at the Scottish Office. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Member, and I am making a perfectly fair point, that the hon. Member for West Fife gave an unsolicited testimonial to what the Scottish Office is attempting to do in the way of kindly and reasonable treatment of the evacuation problem, and I am entitled to draw attention to that fact. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, quite pro-


perly, in my view, chose this opportunity to raise questions of detail about the evacuation of homeless persons in his constituency. I heard, with regret, one phrase that he used, and I hope on reflection he himself will regret having used it. He said that the homeless population in his constituency had been treated worse than criminals.

Mr. Kirkwood: I said "as criminals."

Mr. Johnston: I think he said "worse than criminals," but I will take it as he says it now. I know something about this personally in the major town in the hon. Member's constituency, a sending area. I also know something about it in a receiving area. I was personally all through that very serious and lamentable episode. I want to pay this tribute to the people there, that the thousands of helpers who gave voluntary service, sometimes for two and three days at a time, gave of their best and kindest, and I think there can be no justification whatever for saying that the people who were afflicted by being bombed out were treated like criminals. In the reception areas, too, to my personal knowledge, the householders were kindness itself. I suppose the hon. Member may have received some of them in his own home. I have them in my home now. I know that in the reception towns-everything possible was done to make the afflicted people feel at home.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is the only thing they could do.

Mr. Johnston: Certainly, and no one can do more. No narrow, rigid regulations were laid down, and none were insisted upon. Great kindness was given on all hands, and it was understood and welcomed by the people. I say that they were treated not as criminals but as friends. It may be that here and there there were misfits and people who did not rise to the occasion, I do not doubt it, but by and large I welcome this opportunity of paying a tribute to my folk, the receiving folk, who are the working and middle classes in the West of Scot land, as well as to the poor afflicted folk who were bombed out of their houses, for the great co-operation, the good will, and the magnificent spirit which both sides showed.
The hon. Member raised the case of a family in a certain town. He said quite truly that they were being billeted in a hut. He described the condition, the height and size, and so on, of the hut. This is a family of 13 children and two parents. My information is that repeated attempts were made to billet the family, provided that accommodation could be got for them. It is exceedingly difficult to get a single household able to take a family of 15. If the family had been prepared to divide themselves up, there would have been no difficulty, I am assured, in billeting them, but because they insisted upon being billeted as a unit, the only place available for them in that area was this hut, and they are still there. The hon. Member talked about people who were still in rest centres at certain schools. It is true that they are still in schools, despite the fact that we have done everything we can and moved every interest we can to provide suitable billets for them.

Mr. Kirkwood: You might have given them houses.

Mr. Johnston: Will the hon. Member please allow me to proceed? I did not interrupt him. I am entitled to say what the defence is. We have not given them houses, because no houses are available.

Mr. Kirkwood: Well, make houses. You can build hospitals for wounded soldiers.

Mr. Johnston: I want to explain why these people are living in rest centres. They are living there because some of them, again, are big families—[Interruption]. If I am not to be allowed to give an answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, I do not propose to state it, but I want to say this for the satisfaction of other hon. Members who listened with patience to the hon. Member. There is another side to the case. There is not only the case of large families in these centres, but the case of single men. There is the case of young men who were in billets and who returned to the centres, on the best information given to me, because they got free meals there. We have done everything we can. We have encouraged the county council, which is the requisitioning authority, to requisition four large houses, and these are being equipped as rapidly as it is possible to get materials. I personally went down


there and had an interview with the authorities last Friday night. I was assured that within a fortnight's time these four large houses, requisitioned in different parts of the county, would be ready for occupation by the tenants of the rest centres. If there is any other place where accommodation can be got in houses that can be requisitioned, I want to say that it is not the Scottish Office that is standing in the way of requisitioning powers being used. We have encouraged their use in every possible way.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: My right hon. Friend said the Scottish Office was not standing in the way. Does he suggest that anybody else is responsible?

Mr. Johnson: No, I am saying that I do not know of any houses that are available at once.

Mr. Lindsay: They do not exist?.

Mr. Johnston: I did not say that; I say that I do not know of any. I have had two or three interviews with the county council on this matter and the council has come to me on a deputation about it. We have given every possible help that we can and told the council to. go ahead and get the job done. As far as these rest centres are concernd, probably in a week's time from now it will be possible to have some of the large families housed in the requisitioned mansions.
A statement was also made that the Scottish Office has done nothing in the way of rehousing these poor homeless people. Let me say what we have tried to do. In one town in the hon. Gentleman's constituency a first-class hostel has been opened, and another is in course of equipment. We have arranged for four hostel camps, north, south, east and west of the Clyde basin, for temporarily housing 500 people each. I know that these things are only temporary and only makeshift. I know that we can never cope otherwise with this problem.

Mr. Kirkwood: Never?

Mr. Johnston: Nobody can cope with this problem on peace-time standards. War is hell. There can be no drawing-room arrangements made for dealing with the effects of it.

Mr. Kirkwood: These folk never had any drawing-rooms.

Mr. Johnston: I know that there are towns in Scotland where overcrowding existed in pre-war times to the extent of 45 per cent. of the people. We are not only short of housing in Scotland, but we have enormous overcrowding, and we have a very limited amount of available accommodation even by squeezing people in. All I can say is that whatever it is possible to do, we shall do. We cannot achieve impossibilities, and I do not want to give the impression that we can. The position is that with every destruction of houses by enemy aircraft the accommodation becomes less. With every change in industrial occupation, such as dockers coming up from England, the accommodation still becomes less. All we can do in the way of camps, hostels and so on will be done, but so long as the war lasts and there is a diminution in housing it will be unfair, unjust, unreasonable and foolish for any member of the Government to say that we can deal with this problem as we would like in other circumstances to.
Several speakers have said truthfully that there were people who had left areas, had turned the key in their doors, left their houses unoccupied and gone to receiving areas where they have taken up billeting accommodation. this rendered our problem still more difficult when we came to rind accommodation for homeless people. What is to be done with them? For my part, I say that in this time and under these conditions it is intolerable that anyone should be tenant of two homes, only one of which he occupies, and the other is kept vacant. No one at this time has any right to keep a house vacant. Therefore, we are taking whatever steps we can to draw the attention of the local authorities to the fact that they can requisition any houses that are left vacant by their tenants, and by that means we may secure that persons shall be the occupiers of only a single house, so that, as in matters of food rationing, wherever there is a shortage the shortage is shared. In my view there is no more reason why a man should have two houses, only one of which he is able to occupy, than that he should have two rations of bacon or two rations of butter or tea while his neighbour gets one or none. It may be that all these measures, taken co-operatively, are insufficient to deal adequately with the problem. All I can say is that,


so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, we shall use every power we have and do everything we can to make conditions tolerable for the people during these awful times. We cannot do more than that, and it would be folly to pretend that it is within the power of anybody, Regional Commissioner, dictator, Fuührer, or whoever he may be, to do more.

PEACE AIMS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The House has been engaged in a very interesting Debate on evacuation and problems arising from it. I do not want to touch upon that Debate but would like to turn to what I think is a larger issue. But let me say in passing however, in reference to evacuation, that I live in Manchester, where we have suffered as much, I think, as some other places, and I agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland when he said that when you are at war you cannot expect the same housing accommodation as you can get during peace time. And hon. Members who are harassing the Government ought to understand that housing accommodation is lessened every time we are Blitzed. I want the House to be courteous enough once again to allow me, in the short time at my disposal, to say a few words upon the issue of peace aims. I know that the subjects connected with the war which I raise here from time to time may be unpopular, but during the many years I have been here the House of Commons has always been good enough to listen, although hon. Members may not always have agreed with me. I hope that may be the case to-day. When I speak on such issues I have always to make it clear that I speak for myself alone. There are, however, some few hon. Members who adopt my "slant" on the problems of war and peace. I make no secret of my views upon war. I abhor war, I hate war, and, in my reading of history, in the long run wars never settle anything. They simply make working people poorer than they were when the war began.

Major Vyvyan Adams: And do they enrich the wealthy class?

Mr. Davies: Yes, they do.

Major Adams: No.

Mr. Davies: As a matter of fact, the last war made the rich richer than they were and the poor poorer.

Major Adams: What about this war?

Mr. Davies: The last war actually widened the gulf between rich and poor in this country, and probably this war will do the same thing. Let me say that the Labour party to which I belong, it is the only party to which I have ever belonged and the only party to which, I suppose, I shall ever belong—

Mr. Pickthorn: Do not despair.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member joined it I think I should despair. On 9th February, 1940, after the war had been proceeding for some time, the Labour party issued a statement, "Why discuss peace aims now?" For the last 30 or 35 years, with honourable colleagues of mine, I have stood on, probably, thousands of Labour party platforms to enlist support for the things contained in that statement and that I hope to say this afternoon. I do not change my mind on war because war takes place. I take the same view upon war whether peace or war prevails. This is what my party said:
The Labour party issues this declaration of peace aims now, although the war is not yet won. Victory is our immediate task, but before the peoples are further estranged by slaughter and suffering a lasting and just peace may be brought nearer by stating clearly what our immediate war purpose is, and what should be the principles and methods of the final settlement. Discussion of territorial details is out of place at present, but a statement of the broad lines of settlement may be useful and opportune now.
Living in Manchester, and having been through two nights of hell, and having seen the devastation there—and I am not unlike other hon. Members in that respect —I think the time has arrived when the growing volume of opinion about this war ought to be stated in Parliament, the views of some of the homeless, the injured and the maimed, the people who have suffered because of this war must be voiced. And I can assure hon. Members that there is a growing feeling that we ought to do something better than shouting slogans about a final victory, a fight for freedom and smashing Hitlerism. Let me make it clear that I have always been proud of being a Britisher. Whenever I am abroad, if anybody criticises the


country to which I belong—and no doubt other hon. Members have felt like it—1 become an ardent British patriot, but when I am at home I feel that I am entitled to criticise our institutions and the policy of our Governments. Since the Labour party issued that declaration the Coalition Government have come into being, and we on this side have asked His Majesty's Coalition Government several times whether we cannot have a statement of peace aims. The reply on every occasion has been that the time has been inopportune. I am not without feeling that there are difficulties at times in stating peace aims during a war, but Lord Halifax, our representative in the United States of America, delivered a speech. Speaking in New York on 25th March, 1941, he said:
The principal war aim of my people and of those who are fighting with us is to win this life-and-death struggle for the cause of human freedom, but even the achievement of victory would be Dead Sea fruit unless we could also achieve that which must be the greatest peace aim, of securing the world, so far as it is within human power to do so, against a repetition of this tragedy
I agree with that statement, but it is too nebulous by far as a statement of peace aims. I do not want, of course, a detailed statement as to what should happen to Danzig, the Sudeten, Austria and Eastern Galicia but we are entitled to a reply to what is called Hitler's new order in Europe. I am not familiar with economics, high finance or international arrangements, but things like the Ottawa Agreement, tariffs, quotas and payment for goods by barter or by gold between one country and another, are problems that ought to be settled at some time, and something ought to be said about them now.
The Prime Minister made what I thought was a very irresponsible statement the other night over the wireless, when he said that there were 70,000,000 malignant Huns, millions of them curable and millions killable. I challenge that statement; that philosophy is just like Hitler's charge against the Jews. To say that a race or nation is all malignant is not true. If there are, as we are told, 32,000,000 Catholics, millions of Protestants, some Quakers and millions of Socialists in Germany who do not agree with Hitler any more than I do—I want to make that point clear—I would prefer the British

Government to say something that will appeal to those millions of people in Germany who probably detest Nazism and all that it stands for as much as we here detest it. It is not enough either for the British Government to answer Hitler by saying what they are going to do with the economics of Europe. They ought to say something about what they intend doing here at home. They ought to say whether the capitalist system, as we know it, is to continue as in the past. What are we to do about that question? All over Central Europe the capitalist system has practically disappeared. Is it to remain here?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the capitalist system has disappeared from Europe?

Mr. Davies: Yes. The capitalist system as we understand it in this country, has disappeared in parts of Europe. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Russia"?] Certainly, in Russia.

Mr. Kirkwood: And in Germany.

Mr. Davies: I understand that the barter system entered into recently between Germany and Russia abolished many of the complications of capitalism affecting trade between one country and another. I am not sufficiently familiar with that problem to pursue it any further. I am annoyed when I hear hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House talk glibly about fighting for freedom and Democracy. I have never seen India, but while hon. Members talk about freedom and the rights of the individual, 5,000 or 6,000 leaders of the Indian people are kept in gaol. It is sheer perfidy and hypocrisy when that sort of thing is allowed to continue. The clergy, the statesmen, the politicians, the Press and the B.B.C. all say the same thing about a final victory. As a member of a very humble denomination let me say what has induced me to take the line which I have taken on the war. If I am blamed for my opposition to war, the ministers of the church should be blamed for the teaching which they have given. I have yet to understand why the Christians of one country should fight the Christians of another country and why they should pray for victory in Germany and at the same time pray for victory in this country to the same God.

Mr. Tinker: Is my hon. Friend blaming the Christians in this country? Were we not bound to enter into this war? Were we not provoked into it? You cannot blame the Christians for that.

Mr. Davies: That is exactly what they say in Germany—that they were provoked into it.

Mr. Tinker: Whatever may be said on their behalf, they started the war, and we have to stand up and defend ourselves.

Mr. Davies: Every Government at war say that they are defending themselves; it is only when about 18 months have gone that you find out the real reason why the war started.

Mr. Mander: What would the hon. Member do?

Mr. Davies: If I had anything to do with the Government of this country I would state clearly that we do not intend breaking up Germany as some people are stating just now.

Captain Strickland: Would the hon. Member continue the war meanwhile?

Mr. Wakefield: Does the hon. Member want us broken up?

Mr. Davies: No, I do not.

Captain Strickland: Would the hon. Member as a Christian continue the war?

Mr. Davies: I will have nothing to do with war, but as a Member of Parliament I am, I hope, entitled to say what I think.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member said he would have nothing to do with war. If he were Prime Minister, would he order an immediate cessation of hostilities, or would be immediately enter into negotiation with Hitler?

Mr. Davies: I think I am a little more sensible than that. I am pleading that our Government ought to make a statement of what we are fighting about. [AN HON. MEMBER: "We have."] We have never said what we are fighting about, except in slogans which are meaningless. Once the British Government make a statement such as I suggest, I hope they will rally behind them, not only the men and women of good will in France, Germany and Central

Europe, but men and women of good will in this country also. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that many men, probably millions, in this country who support the war, still want to know what the fight is about. That, in short, is the contention that I make.
Let me come back however to the question of the Church. I have never understood the Church's attitude towards war. For some three centuries, after its foundation, the Church decided not to have anything to do with war in any circumstances, in spite of persecution.
In 1936, the Prime Minister made a statement which I think was correct. He said—
Another great war would destroy what is left of the civilisation of the world, and the glory of Europe would sink for uncounted generations into the abyss
When people descend gradually into poverty they do not feel it as they would if the drop were sudden. Gradually, Europe is now sinking into the abyss. I hope it may never come true, but if the statesmen of Europe do not take steps to bring this conflict to a close by some means other than a fight to a finish they may find an exhausted Continent, under famine and pestilence, with the result that Communist groups will emerge and Communist Governments will be in control over most of the European countries. If we destroy Nazism, and Communism takes its place, may I ask hon. Gentlemen whether they are prepared to declare war on Bolshevism afterwards? Some of us feel very strongly because the statesmen of Europe have not found some better way out of this situation. Some day they will have to meet round a table to discuss the very problems that caused this war, and as far as I am concerned—and I think I am speaking the minds of a goodly number of folk in the mines, factories, offices and shops when I say so—if any power in the world, Government or individuals, could do anything to remove the gloom and hatred now smothering Europe and bring peace to the peoples, that power would be thanked by many generations to come. Whilst I am not for peace at any price I am opposed to war at any cost.

Mr. Tinker: I would like to say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend and colleague on these benches because I think it is about time that the statements


he has made should be met by his colleagues, so that the House may know how we feel on this matter. It is a wonderful tribute to this country, which the hon. Member seemed to belittle —

Mr. Davies: I never belittled it.

Mr. Tinker: —that in this House he can express the views which he has expressed this afternoon and that those views are listened to with tolerance and respect. That is something of which he ought to be proud, and something for which he ought to give credit to the country.

Mr. Davies: It must not be assumed for a moment that I wish to belittle this country. I am as proud of this country as any person, but I would be prouder still if it kept out of war.

Mr. Tinker: But it is this country which, by a huge majority, has determined to stand against Hitlerism. The country is made up of its inhabitants, and so far as I can see about 99 per cent. of its inhabitants are out for seeing that Hitler is beaten. They make up the country, and so, if my hon. Friend is proud of his country, he ought to be proud of his countrymen who wish to carry on the war until victory comes. That is the line I think he ought to take.

Mrs. Hardie: Dees the hon. Gentleman think it would be democratic, even though 90 per cent. of the people are in favour of carrying on the war, if the other 10 per cent. were not allowed to put forward their views? That would not be real democracy.

Mr. Tinker: That is what I am saying. I am saying that it is a wonderful tribute that that can be done.

Mrs. Hardie: It has taken centuries to fight for that freedom.

Mr. Tinker: I am trying to say to hon. Members that if they believe in this country, where there are over 90 per cent. of the people behind the War, respect ought to be given to the vast majority. 1 go as much as anybody among the people to try and find out what their feelings are, and even after the terrible blitzes I find this spirit dominating: Carry on until this terror, this menace to Europe, is removed. That is the verdict of the people. The hon. Member was talking about what would happen if certain things

took place. Yes, all that will happen if Hitler is successful, but if we are successful in crushing him, there will be some opportunity of developing along the lines which the hon. Member has been trying to describe. What is to happen to the churches, he asks, if this war goes on? What is to happen to the churches if Hitler wins? What has he done in Germany, to free speech, religion and everything else? It is because we know what he has done in Germany, and in every country he has conquered, that we say, however much we may hate war, that it is the only stand that an honourable man or woman in this country could take.
To remain idle and supineas we have done would be a tragedy, and I blame hon. Members like the hon. Member who has just spoken for the fact that we have arrived at our present position. I believe that if this country had prepared for war six or seven years ago, this would never have taken place. I have reason to believe that Hitler and Germany have been weighing their chances and, seeing that this country was not ready for war, they took the opportunity of striking and of conquering country after country. If we had been strongly prepared, and if Hitler had known that when he struck at a weaker country we should be ready to deliver a counter-blow, he would never have dared to do what he has done. I am as big a peace lover as anybody else —and I am a fighter too when I am driven to fight—but I want to say to peace lovers that Hitler does not recognise that kind of thing at all. He is out for the domination of the world, to kill free speech and everything else that is free, so that Europe will be governed by him.
The hon. Member blames the Prime Minister for having criticised the whole of Germany. I do not blame him. For a number of years we have been trying to appease Germany—even after the war started—and have been saying that we are only against Hitler and the few behind him. But the German people keep helping Hitler, and giving him all the help they can. If it is correct that the commander of the "Bismarck," when that ship was sunk, sent home a message about "God bless the Fuehrer," or "Long life to Hitler," does not that show that the German people believe in the Fuehrer? We do not believe in him, and we are right to tell the German people


what we think about them. I wish I could believe that the majority of the German people are not of that way of thinking, but seeing that they are behind Hitler, surely the Prime Minister is not to be blamed for telling the world what he thinks about them. I hope the hon. Member will try to think about these things, because the freedom that he now enjoys would, should Hitler conquer, be swept away altogether. Both he and I are hoping that at the end of the war a new system will be developed which will give the working people a better outlook in life than they have yet had, but I realise that unless we are able to defeat Hitler, neither he nor I will have the opportunity of working for a better world.
Before I conclude I would also say this: The people who are fighting this war and putting their all into it will, when a successful issue has been brought about, be able to give their all to develop this country on the right lines, in order to give to everybody the standard of life to which we are entitled. I do not object to the hon. Member's criticism of what has happened in the past in this country. I have fought along with him to try and get it altered.

Mr. Rhys Davies: If the hon. Member tells me that when we have defeated Hitler we shall build a new world, may I ask if he does not remember that last time we gained the most decisive victory in the history of. the world, and although we achieved that victory thousands of miners in my division were unemployed for 10 years?

Mr. Tinker: I realise the tragedy of all that, and I realise that it will be a lesson for us when we have won this war. But I can visualise a period after this war when there will be no unemployment at all, and when we shall try to build up on the lines we are now following for the. successful prosecution of the war. We shall turn our energies to finding employment for everybody, and the same brains and intellects which are now doing that for war purposes will be able to do the same in times of peace. I hope that when the hon. Member is making speeches in the country he will not point out to the populace that they were promised all this after the last war, and did not get it, and

try and get it into their minds that after the conclusion of this war they are likely to get what they got last time. That is not right, because the same men who are now putting their all into winning this war can help us to develop on better lines after the war is over. Then the hon. Member said we were travelling to the abyss. I think we shall be travelling to the abyss, and rapidly, if speeches like his get any hold at all. If he means that we should try to patch up peace with Hitler— and I can see no other meaning in his speech than that—with all Hitler's broken pledges in the past, how can we expect any peace for the world in future? We are up against the greatest tragedy of all time. It means either the survival or the defeat of civilisation as we know it. If Hitler wins, that civilisation will be defeated.
I have a great liking for the hon. Member; but I would ask him, has he carefully weighed up the true position? Any overtures at this time might lead to aweakening of the war spirit and make Hitler think that he has a greater chance than he has. I put it to the hon. Member that there can be no agreement with Hitler, who has never carried out any pledge that he has made. If I may, I will pay one tribute to a man with whom I never agreed. No man went further than the late Mr. Chamberlain. He put trust in Hitler's word. After he had been to Munich to meet Hitler, he came back believing that he had got peace. Many of us doubted it, but the hon. Member for Westhoughton, I believe, cheered him. The hon. Member knows of the tragedy of Czecho-Slovakia. Within a few months. Hitler had marched in, and had broken all his pledges. That has been his policy all the time. Whatever the consequences may be, I see no other way but carrying on the fight as bitterly as we can until Hitler cries for peace. Otherwise, there is no hope for civilisation. I feel, as a member of the Labour party, that we have to tell the people that the views of the hon. Member for Westhoughton are not those of the Labour party. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity of putting my views before the House of Commons.

Mr. Stokes: It is a little unfortunate that this Debate has turned into a dispute between the pacifists and the non-pacifists. The hon. Member for West-


houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is a pacifist, but I do not think it was his intention to allow the Debate to develop on those lines. He rather wanted to urge the importance of getting a statement of peace aims from the Government.

Mr. Tinker: It is the same thing.

Mr. Stokes: It is not the same thing. Perhaps if my hon. Friend, with his usual patience, will let me speak, he will see that there is some sense in what I say. Although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton, because I am not a pacifist, I very much admire the sincerity and the perseverance with which he puts his point of view. I think that the difference between him and me is that people holding my philosophy recognise the existence of positive evil, which has to be resisted. But that is not to say that you must go on resisting positive evil with your head down, completely blind, and with nothing to steer by.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said that the rebuilding of Europe, in the way that we want it, would come about if and when we were successful. He did not tell us what kind of Europe he proposed to offer. I do not want delimitation of frontiers and so on, but T want the main principles stated. I think the hon. Member is wrong in his assumption that all the Germans are necessarily as evil as he would like us to believe. I think his analogy was false when he spoke of the commander of a large battleship sending a message to his commander-in-chief in Berlin that he saluted him as he went down; and, because a serving officer in a high position is moved, in the hour of death, to send such a message to his leader does not mean that millions of ordinary people think likewise. What I and people who feel like me are pressing for is some constructive positive statement on principles. It is no use the Government telling us that the time is not convenient. A statement of principles can be made at any time. Our propaganda is a complete failure because there has been no such statement of principles. It is no use the hon. Member for Leigh saying that we all perfectly understand what we are fighting for and that the Germans must be beaten, unless he recognises that the kind of propaganda we are putting out, in the shape of "Black Record" and that sort of thing, can only have the catastrophic effect of

rallying behind Hitler all those elements that we want to separate from him. The hon. Member for Leigh is the last person who wants to see this country defeated— and I am the second last. [Interruption.] I will give the hon. and gallant Member second place if he wants it.

Captain Strickland: I do not claim either first or second place.

Mr. Stokes: That was only a manner of speech on my part. If we are to get the result we want to achieve, we have to get the sensible people in Europe to rally behind us. The propaganda we are putting out is having the opposite effect. We know that one of the strongest weapons we have is the blockade, and that, behind it, Hitler is organising his "new order," which is nothing less than people taking in one another's washing. Why cannot we say that the moment this war stops and they throw over the regime that they are under at present, we can offer them something better than anything that Hitler has to offer, free trade with the whole of the world? That would have a vast and far-reaching effect.

Mr. Granville: With Hitler in control of the Press, radio, films, and every other means of propaganda communication in Germany, how does the hon. Member propose to get over our peace aims, or what we are fighting for, to the ordinary man in the street in Germany, to the 32,000,000 Catholics in Germany, or to the people whom he hopes to enlist as allies?

Mr. Stokes: That is a perfectly fair question. I am not suggesting that Dr. Goebbels, on request from the House of Commons, would publish our peace aims on the wireless. But there are many ways in which it could be done. Has the hon. Member any experience of being a soldier in occupation of another country? The further the German armies spread over Europe, the easier it will be to infiltrate this kind of propaganda among the people of Germany.

Captain Strickland: Would the hon. Member say that the German soldier is the best means of getting propaganda over to the German nation?

Mr. Stokes: The most uncomfortable memory I have is of occupying Germany. Soldiers do not like to be in other people's


countries. You can get propaganda over in many ways. I do not believe the Germans do not listen to the wireless. I know there are heavy penalties, but I do not believe that there is nobody there with any courage.

Mr. Granville: They cannot.

Mr. Stokes: If the hon. Member says that they live in a hermetically sealed tin, that is a matter of difference between us. Another question is the way in which these views are held in America. I have an extract here from the New York "Times" of 2nd March of this year. The article was headed, "Peace Aims regarded as Essential to Peace," followed by "Marked influence on German people seen should democracies make known what they were willing to grant to all of Europe in victory" The article is largely the story of a correspondence between an American writer and a German friend who left Germany for political reasons in 1933. He writes:
I still maintain that Hitler's hold can be broken if acceptable peace aims were to be announced. You know as well as I that Germany will fight it out to the last man if there remains only the choice between two evils— Hitler and another Versailles—andI have gradually come round to the view that the only hope for our people in that case lies in a fusion with the Soviet Russia.
He goes on to say:
You know better than anyone that I have not changed my mind about Hitler and all that he stands for. We have hoped and we have worked for a different Germany and for a different Europe but I cannot desert my country. The idea of fighting for Hitler is revolting to me but I feel that my place is in Germany now and I shall leave for Europe next week
The article concludes with this comment from the writer:
The demand (for peace aims) must again be voiced not in the interests of any one people but in the interests of all of Europe and of Western and democratic civilisation. A pronouncement of peace aims can become the cornerstone for the building of a new and better Europe

Mr. Wakefield: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is a marvellous piece of Goebbels' propaganda?

Mr. Stokes: It may be Goebbels' propaganda, but I find it much too easy to expect that the opposite point of view in every case really is the work of the enemy. I do not understand that point of

view at all. You can say that it is Goebbels' propaganda. I cannot prove it. I did not know that the New York "Times" is essentially pro-Goebbels. Is it so? I always understand to the contrary.

Mr. Wakefield: Exactly. That makes it all the more reason why it is so useful.

Mr. Stokes: Then we shall go on for ever and ever, and no one will be able to trust anyone any more. I am not asking that you should not say it if you wish to, but I am convinced that the best war weapon that we have is a statement of principle showing to the people of Europe the very great offer that we could make to them when peace comes, and it is possible that as a result of such a statement we would face a far shorter war than at present appears likely.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member who opened this discussion said that he hated war. We all hate war as much as he does. Every person in the country hates and loathes war and surely there is no point in bringing in an issue of this kind. He also said that he hated Hitler. His policy is one which would hand over this country to Hitler. We all recognise his complete sincerity, but at the same time he was unable to face up to the issue that was put to him, "What would you do now? Would you lay down arms?"

Mr. Stokes: Is that a fair question?

Mr. Mander: It is a fair question., We are responsible Members of Parliament and have to defend the policy we take up. His policy is simply to hand over this country to Hitler. The policy works out exactly the same as the policy of the Communist party in practice, much as he may dislike being found in the same boat. The hon. Member is, as he must recognise in what he says, not in the lease representative of the opinion of this country. Much as we should regret it on personal grounds, if there were a general election now or a by-election in his constituency he would not have any hope of being returned. The people of the country had an opportunity at a recent by-election at King's Norton of freely expressing their view, and it was clear what they thought of the Peace Pledge Union candidate on that occasion. I think it is clear to all of us who mix with our constituents that they


are in a very grim and determined mood. They are prepared to bear all and to suffer all and to go right through to the bitter end until victory arrives. No difficulties, no dangers and no defeats will keep them down. They recognise that the struggle is real. However it may have arisen, or whether it might have been prevented or not, that is not the issue we are considering at the moment. It is an issue now between right and wrong, and saving that which civilisation has built up in many centuries past, and the darkness and bleakness of the barbarism of the Middle Ages.

Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Member explain why Mr. Montague Norman thought that it was important to lend £50,000,000 to support the Nazi regime and said that it would be much better to lose it than to have the Nazi regime collapse?

Mr. Mander: I am not concerned with the views of Mr. Montague Norman, but with the view of the majority of the people of this country.

Mr. Granville: Is that not proof of the fact that everything you do to co-operate with people in Germany fails?

Mr. Mander: With regard to what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said, I would make one comment. It has always seemed to me, and, I suppose, to all of us, that there are three ways in which victory can be brought about—by the pressure of blockade, by increasing the power of air bombardment and by propaganda in getting over to the German people—and I do not think that it is impossible—by one means or another, what our views are and what we are thinking. We should try and make them realise that their cause is hopeless, that we are going on to victory at all costs and nothing is going to keep us down, and that will have a very considerable effect on their morale. The position is quite different in their case. They are not going to bear up and suffer and go on to the bitter end. If they see danger of defeat coming, they will certainly break. The danger of defeat facing this country would not cause us to break, but only make us more determined than ever. We certainly ought to try and get before the German people the reasonable point of view from the world aspect that we have that we are not going

to make slaves of them after the war is over as they would make slaves of us. They do not know that and we have to make it clear to them.
When the hon. Member talks about the necessity of these aims being stated, I agree that in principle that is very desirable. It is the Government's own policy. Many of us who are 100 per cent. supporters of the Government in the war —far more than the hon. Member for Ipswich—have been pressing them to put forward their views on war and peace aims. We recognise that it can only be done in most general terms, and recently a statement has been made. Since the article in the New York "Times" which has been quoted, it was stated by Lord Halifax in New York. Although it was in general terms—and I hope it will be developed a great deal—it goes a considerable way and covers a number of important points. I ventured to take out a number of points that seemed important and put them down in the form of a Motion asking that this House would definitely approve of the policy put forward by Lord Halifax. If I might mention two or three of these points, I think we shall see what a long way they go. Lord Halifax emphasises in effect—and this point is one which it is necessary to bear in mind almost more than anything else— that we must, after this war, set up a system of military might, prearranged, certain to operate, that will be available to attack any aggressor in any part of the world at the first moment he attempts to raise his head. We did not have that before this war. Many of us urged that it should be done, but it was not in operation. Lord Halifax said:
There should be co-operation between nations for mutual economic warfare and, if need be, for mutual defence, the establishment of an international order admitting of ordered change in the relations between States and a willingness to join hands with any State which genuinely seeks peace and the prosperity of the world by honouring its engagements and ensuring individual liberty.
Then he went on:
The possibility of utilising the British Commonwealth by reason of its geographical dispersion is the approach to greater world unity
Whether we try it again as before, through the League of Nations, or, if that is not practical, whether as an alternative we reach it through the British Commonwealth of Nations, let us do it by all


means. It seems to me that it would be an admirable thing if we linked up with our Allies in this war who, I believe, would be only too willing to make mutually agreeable arrangements for foreign affairs and defence purposes, and made them for practical purposes working members of the British Empire. It would be simply extending our practice and experience to the whole world. That is the policy adumbrated by Lord Halifax, which, I believe, would be acceptable to our Allies and peace-loving States and which is, possibly, the easiest line of advance for world peace in future. Lord Halifax also said:
There must be after the war a sufficient armed strength to make effective the will of the nations to preserve peace and freedom. There must be a refusal to negotiate for peace with Hitler
Some hon. Members have said that we shall have to meet Hitler in the long run, but it is no use meeting round the table crooks and gangsters whose word you cannot trust or a man whom you have to watch the whole time. No; we shall have to get somebody much more respectable if he can be found.

Captain Strickland: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that our Allies should be part of the British Empire. He used the phrase "in the British Empire" I take it he means equal partners with the British Empire?

Mr. Mander: I mean associated with the British Empire, perhaps in the same way as we have alliances with Egypt and certain other States at the present time. For all practical purposes for foreign affairs and defence there would be unity between the British Empire and her Allies. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding about that. As I was saying, there must be a refusal to work with Hitler, because you cannot possibly trust him. When the time comes to sign the terms of peace we must make sure that this time the representatives of the different sections of the German people put their names on the paper as agreeing to the terms of surrender which will have to be finally exacted. That is not excluding the Nazis. I know that their signature is not worth the paper it is written on, but we do not want them in future days to turn round on those who have signed the peace terms

and say, "It was your doing; we have no responsibility" The Nazis and their friends must be made to be just as much responsible as anybody else for the terms that are made after this war. I think, too, that when that time arrives the victorious Allied troops should be seen in Berlin and the main cities and towns of Germany so that the Germans can never say again, "We never lost this war" Let them see for themselves that they have lost it. Finally, Lord Halifax says:
There should be a declaration that we desire neither vindictive peace nor territorial gains but steps should be taken to insure the world against a repetition of war at the hands of Germany
Sir Robert Vansittart, in his famous "Black Record," referred to the fact that there were never enough good Germans at any one time to have any effect on the policy of Germany. That is an admission that there are some good Germans, and our policy should be to try and increase that number. It may be a long process, requiring a tremendous system of re education, but we must try to bring that about while holding Germany down and preventing her starting another war during her period of re-education, and make sure that it will never arise afterwards.

Mr. Silverman: Assuming that the speech of Lord Halifax contained all the things which the hon. Gentleman says it contains —

Mr. Mander: It does.

Mr. Silverman: Assuming that it amounted to a programme of satisfactory peace aims, does the hon. Member say to this House that the speech of an Ambassador in Washington can take the place of a declaration by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Mander: With regard to his actual terms, they were picked out by me from the speech made by Lord Halifax and put forward as a Motion which is on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. That speech has a certain value; it was made on behalf of the Government and published as a White Paper, and it should be elaborated as I have tried to elaborate it to-day. I think the Government would be very wise, in the interests of shortening and winning the war, to make use of the principles embodied in that declaration as a means of propaganda by endeavouring


to get over to the German people by all possible means the sort of ideas set out so clearly and admirably in that speech by our Ambassador. I hope one result of this Debate to-day will be to increase interest in the matter, that action will be devoted to that aspect of our war weapon and that it will be made clear to the whole world that we here in the House of Commons stand more united and determined than ever to go on until the war has been won and Nazism has been destroyed for ever.

Mr. Cove: I do not think there is any difference on any side of the House about the question that we must win this war, but I have the impression that some hon. Members think those of us who desire a declaration of peace aims arc in the position of going to Hitler on bended knees. I emphatically repudiate that. There is no doubt whatever that nobody in this House or in any part of the country is prepared to go to Hitler on bended knees and sue for the peace that he would impose upon us. That is not our position. My point of view, and the point of view of others, is that what we want to do is to divide the German nation and unite the British nation. One of the great problems in this war is to effect a real division inside Germany. For many months at the beginning of the war, we were told that Hitler would be forsaken by the German people, but the events that have taken place, instead of dividing Hitler from his people, have brought him and his people closer together. As far as I can gather, Hitler, with his military victories, has something to show to his people, and he is now more in their hearts than he was at the beginning of the war. It seems to me that we have done nothing to divide the German people from him. To state it bluntly, we have been unable to do so on the military plane, and therefore I urge upon the Government the necessity of their making a statement of peace aims in order to do whatever we can to divide the German people from Hitler and unite the people of this country.
It is useless to say at this time that among people of what is broadly called the Left there is the same unity and the same trust as there were 12 months ago. I have seen articles in publications of what is generally called the intellectual Left in which it has been stated that, whereas the

war started with the aims and purposes of the Left, it is now being waged for the aims and purposes of the Right. I mention that only to show that already, among Left opinion, there is some doubt, scepticism and questioning as to the aims and purposes for which the war is being waged. J submit that this is confirmed by the statement in a recent speech of the Prime Minister, delivered, I believe, to the Central Conservative Council, when he said that the Government cannot state peace aims because in the statement of peace aims there would be a danger of a division and a difference of opinion. That remark confirms the suspicion of those who write the articles to which I have referred. I say quite sincerely to the Government that if they want a united nation they must get it, not merely by military action, not even by military victory, but by a concensus of opinion on clearly stated and determined peace aims.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I think the hon. Member has misrepresented the Prime Minister's remarks. I think the Prime Minister directed attention to the conditions which might obtain in this country after the war, and that he made it quite clear that there was no division of opinion in the country as to the peace aims of this country in defeating the enemy.

Mr. Cove: The military defeat of the enemy is a war aim. I repeat that doubt and suspicion as to the purposes of the war will grow at an increasingly rapid rate unless the Government clearly and definitely state their peace aims. I am not a pacifist, and I say that one of the finest and most effective war weapons which the Government could have at this moment would be a declaration of their peace aims. I make this appeal to the Government in the interests of defeating Hitlerism. I know that the Under-Secretary of State is as well aware as I am that people in various grades of society are now asking whether the war is really against Hitlerism, or whether—I am stating bluntly what people have said to me —it is an Imperialist war. The Government can settle people's minds on that question. It is only the Government that can allay people's fears.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: Is there no question of its being a war against pan-Germanism?

Mr. Cove: I am stating the questions that arise in people's minds. People are asking why the Government do not state their peace aims, why they do not give an assurance that what we are fighting for is the real downfall of Hitlerism. Blood, sweat, toil and tears are no real peace aim, and will not keep the morale of our people going during the long stresses and strains of war. Morale can be maintained only if people are convinced that there will not arise after this war a similar situation to that which arose after the last war. Do not let us forget that many people are alive who went through the last war. Many people had their dreams of what might happen after that war. Many people thought there would no longer be unemployment, poverty and degradation, and that all those things would be done away with. There is scepticism on these matters. I ask the Government what contribution they have to make. In a sense, Hitler has peace aims in Europe; not that I agree with them; but if one follows events and the opinions that are expressed, one finds that he has brought a Hitler order to Europe. There is something positive about that. We may dislike it, we may differ from it, quarrel with it, and want to overthrow it, but it is something positive, and indeed, there are many people who are saving that it is something positive that may last.
I ask the Government what positive contribution have they to make in the way of a declaration, not merely on the military plane but on the political and economic plane? For, after all, behind the military action and the weapons, behind the war itself, behind Hitlerism, lies the gigantic problem of unemployment and poverty. There lies the root of the trouble that exists. The qualities of Hitler may explain why Hitler is there, but they do not explain why Hitlerism is in Germany. Without doubt, it is a product of the post-war economic difficulties and the gigantic unemployment throughout Europe. Hitler took advantage of the unemployment and poverty that existed. I ask the Government, therefore, what positive contribution have they to make to the European order? What positive contribution have they to make to the economic and social order in Britain? I do not want to see us under the heel of Hitler. I would rather be dead than be under the heel of Hitler. It is on that basis that I appeal to the Govern-

ment to give us a weapon to show that we are a united nation and that we really mean to get a better world. I appeal to the Government, therefore, to state their peace aims now, because now is the opportune time, in order that we may march forward to victory with a united nation such as has never been known.

Major Vyvyan Adams: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is a substantial figure, but I wish he would recognise certain physical facts. He did not tell us, for example, how we could convey to the German people that constructive statement for which he pleaded so eloquently. I know we heard him say certain things, but he might not have heard that it is an offence in Germany to listen to foreign broadcasts. He stated that as the German tide swept over the Continent of Europe it might be possible for our propaganda to make an impression on the fringe of that tide. I do not agree with him. The further the Nazis go, the more nations they trample down, the more progressive the submergence of freedom. What Czech, what Pole, what Frenchman to-day can say what he likes? How much freedom of speech or of opinion is there left to-day to the Bulgarians, the Rumanians, the Yugoslavs and the Greeks?
I am sorry I interrupted the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) while he was speaking. But I could not help feeling that he was most anxious to assume a rôle of peculiarity. He is not peculiar in detesting war. He is not peculiar in having experienced severe air raids. He is not even peculiar in desiring a statement of peace aims. But it does not occur to the hon. Gentleman, nor to the other hon. Members who have spoken in the same sense, that before so very long the United States may desire, in common with the British Commonwealth of Nations, to say something upon peace aims. Do not let the hon. Member suggest that the sufferings of war are sustained solely by the poorer classes.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Member really think that by the United States entering into the war that would alter by one iota any of the principles I want to have stated?

Major Adams: I was answering the hon. Member for Westhoughton, but if the hon. Member for Ipswich wishes to undertake


the task of the hon. Member for West-houghton I do not object. I believe that we a re going to proceed to victory in common with the United States. I believe that that will come before so very long and that we shall be engaged on this common task. It is at least common sense, if and when the United States have joined our side, that we should be inspired by a common purpose. I do not see that that is anything more than the merest common sense. I must repeat again to the hon. Member for Westhoughton that it is quite a fallacy to suggest that suffering in wartime is limited to the poorer classes. The greatest suffering, the greatest sacrifice, the greatest loss which any man or woman can undergo is death. Sudden death spares neither the rich nor the poor.
I have heard the hon. Member, when his national susceptibilities have been touched from time to time, charge whatever has been the Government of the day with insults to small nations. I would remind the hon. Member that Wales is not the only small nation in the world; although upon no Welshman has; any ban of silence been imposed. I wish the hon. Member would direct some of his Doric fury against that monstrous enemy of small nationalities—the present Government of Germany. That is one of the things for which I take leave to define we are fighting to-day—the freedom and independence of small nationalities, as well as the dignity of the individual man. I say to the hon. Member that there is one thing which is worse than war, and one thing which is more un-Christian than war, and that is tyranny and submission to it. That might not be clear to the hon. Member, but it has become clear both to the President of the United States and to the American people as a whole. The hon. Member says that he will have nothing to do with war, but if we lose this war, of which the hon. Member so graciously washes his hands, he will certainly no longer enjoy that freedom to speak as he has spoken to-day—a minority voice which is contrary to the general will of our people, as anyone can tell by conversations inside and outside this House, and by diagnosing the results of by-elections in which absolute freedom of speech is to all intents and purposes still allowed. His is a minority voice contrary to the general good, as we-believe, as well.
The hon. Member referred to "the abyss" How is Europe going to be delivered from this abyss which the hon. Member describes? Is it to be delivered by acquiescence in Hitler's conquests? Such acquiescence would surely mean the disintegration of the British Commonwealth of Nations which is the greatest citadel of freedom in the world to-day. No, we are only going to be delivered from this abyss by the defeat not only of Nazism but of modern Germany as well. I do not mind if it offends the hon. Member and those who agree with him, but I do not want the next generation, which we have begotten, to have to undergo the same experiences which we have already suffered. I do not want them to undergo in another quarter and half century hence what our day and generation have seen —two great wars. Germany must and will be thoroughly defeated, and must not be allowed to break the peace again at will. At the bitter end of this war it will be better to compel peace by the defeat and disintegration of this great and ruthless power in the centre of Europe, than to allow our children and grandchildren to be cursed by any revival of the insane ambitions of Germany.

Mr. Wakefield: The hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Major Adams) and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) have answered very fully, and have expressed the views of many of us sitting here, the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I would not wish to add to what they have said, but there were one or two points which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) raised which, I think, do require a brief answer. The hon. Member for Ipswich said that no constructive and positive statement has been made. The hon. Member for East Wolvernampton (Mr. Mander) gave us some very fine words which were spoken by our Ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Who is a member of the War Cabinet.

Mr. Wakefield: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. Lord Halifax is a member of the War Cabinet, and he has made a statement on principles. It


is not the case that there has been no statement made. At the beginning of this war the late Prime Minister made a very clear statement on principles, and on other occasions statements have been made showing that we are fighting this war for our survival, for decency and for upholding those things which the hon. Lady the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) stated our forefathers had fought for throughout the centuries. What greater principles could you have to fight for than that?

Mr. Stokes: I do not wish to enter into a scrum with the hon. Member, but the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) only quoted extracts from the speech of Lord Halifax. There are certain passages with which I profoundly disagree, and I should like to put that on record, because I have not got the exact quotations with me.

Mr. Wakefield: That may be so, but it does not alter the fact that some very positive statements were made. However, it is not the case, as the hon. Member suggested, that no statement has been made, and I think it is as well that that should be also on record. The hon. Member for Ipswich went on to say —

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member is raising a point which ought to be dealt with at once. Perhaps the right hon. Member who replies will deal with it. The statement made by Viscount Halifax was made on behalf of the Government and represents their policy. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about that.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right place to make a statement of that kind New York or the House of Commons?

Mr. Wakefield: The statements have been made, and that is the important point. The hon. Member for Ipswich went on to deprecate the statement made in "Black Record" by Sir Robert Vansittart. I think that is a very valuable statement, because it shows how difficult is our task in educating the Germans into our way of thinking. What is this task which we have to pursue? The Nazis have led the German people into thinking that they can hit other people without themselves being hit. That was why they invaded Poland and hit aircraft on the ground there, so that Germany could not

be bombed. They invaded Norway because they knew very well that the Norwegians had no aircraft to enable them to bomb back. They did the same thing in the Low Countries. We know how in 1914 they expressed contempt of the British Army, and they said the same thing about the Royal Air Force at the beginning of this war. The only way in which we can make Germans realise that war does not pay is to hit back so hard that they will never want to go to war again for many generations. The hon. Member suggests that we can start talking about peace now, when only a few days ago we read of the brutal, deliberate dive-bombing of cities in Crete and of the machine-gunning of women and children in the streets. How can you make peace with people who do that sort of thing? It is impossible* Until we hit Germany, as I hope we are going to do in the coming months, harder and harder, we shall not get them to talk or think sense.

Mrs. Hardie: Does the hon. Member realise that we may smash ourselves in the process? It is not only Germans we are thinking of; it is British men, women and children.

Mr. Wakefield: Does the hon. Member opposite want to live under the sort of conditions that exist in Poland?

Mrs. Hardie: There are pretty bad conditions under the British Government. Tyranny comes from within. Does the hon. Member realise that we may lose all the freedom we possess in trying to smash some other nation?

Mr. Wakefield: If tyranny comes from within, it is up to us to remove that internal tyranny, but you cannot remove tyranny imposed on you by force from without. I do not want to live, and I do not want my family to live, under the sort of conditions imposed in Poland and other countries overrun by Germany.

Mrs. Hardie: None of us wants the war lost, but we want the war stopped at the earliest possible moment under decent conditions. It is for the sake of ourselves, of our children and our young men, and not because of any tenderness for Germany.

Mr. Wakefield: The quickest way in which we can stop the war is by building up our Air Force as rapidly as possible


to hit Germany as hard as possible. The sooner that is done the better. That leads me to the observations made by the hon. Member for Aberavon. He said, "Divide Germany, unite Britain" It was the military victories of Hitler, he said, that had united Germany, and he went on to say that we had done nothing to divide the German people from Hitler. How are we best to divide the German people from Hitler? By hitting them hard and hitting them still harder again in their cities. Hitler promised them immunity from us. He made the German people a lot of promises. The sooner we can show the German people that the promises of the Fuehrer are false, the sooner will we get victory and the sooner will we divide the German people, and the sooner will the German people be ready for the sort of statement he thinks ought to be made now.

Mr. Cove: May I ask the hon. Member if he read two articles in the "Times" about five or six weeks ago as to conditions inside Germany and the relation of the working classes with Hitler?

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: May I ask the hon. Member whether he does not recognise that the majority of the German people are behind Hitler, but that there is a minority who are opposed in their hearts to Hitler? We hope the time will come when they will be on our side.

Mr. Wakefield: I am anxious to turn that minority into a majority, and that can only be done by hitting the Germans hard and making them recognise that this war does not pay. I am sorry to say it, because it is a terrible thing to say, but the German people have been brought up to believe in force, and the only way we can make them disbelieve in force is to menace them with overwhelming force of the kind that they have tried, and unfortunately with a considerable amount of success, to use in other countries. Then the time will be ripe for putting statements over to the German people.

Mr. Martin: I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for having raised this Debate, though I am afraid I do not agree with him at all. The Debate has not unnaturally roused considerable heat, because many Members are divided on this question, and I want to

endeavour not to add to that heat. This is a question of policy which must be discussed as far as possible outside the terms of popular emotion. The important thing, in my view, is that we must not overlook the fact that the end of the war may come a good deal more abruptly than many people suppose. It is the function, obviously, of the Government to prepare for a long, an arduous and an uncertain war, but equally their function is to prepare, on the other hand, for a war which may have many surprises and which for some reason or another may come to a sudden collapse. If there were some lack of preparation on the part of the Government in making provision for a sudden, 1 dramatic change in the situation of Europe, it might cause us to be faced with the question of peace aims at a very short interval of time. It would be a calamity of the first magnitude, as I think people on both sides would agree, if we were in fact to be faced with the problem of peace without having made sufficient preparation for it.
There are two aspects of this matter which affect us. It is generally agreed that the first is propaganda. We have to build up a policy which can be effective in operating upon the minds of the German people at exactly that point of which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) spoke when he said the only think to do was to hit the Germans and to hit them hard. I cordially agree with that point of view, but we are bound to come to a moment, sooner or later, at which we shall have to add to that policy of hitting them. We cannot simply go on bombing until nothing is left of the German people and the spirit to negotiate has simply died down. We must seize the psychological moment at which the German people will revolt from the tyranny of the Nazis, and press the German people with every weapon in our power. We must be ready to add the psychological weapon of propaganda and of a policy which may inspire the German people to accept peace. There will be general agreement that the preparation of that policy is an extraordinarily difficult function.
The Debate has manifested the great cleavage of opinion that there is in the House upon the subject and it is obvious that, when we come to the point, a great many people will wish to treat the Ger-


mans with greater severity and others who will wish to treat them with less. I hope there will be a consensus of opinion about this. I do not think it should be treated as an emotional matter, but I hope the Government are alive to the necessity of tackling courageously those fluctuations of public opinion because, only by courageous leadership, at the proper time —I mean when it is not too late—will it be possible to unite the country, not for the comparatively easy task of waging war, because that is a comparatively easy task, but for the much more difficult task of putting over the kind of peace that is required.
Beyond propaganda lies the question of' reconstruction. We have sooner or later to build up this new world in which we shall all participate, the Germans as well as ourselves. The whole purpose of our propaganda is to represent that new world in a light which will make it acceptable to a sufficient number of the German people to enable them to revolt against Hitler at the proper moment, and also ensure that we shall get the kind of Germany which will prevent this thing ever happening again. It is for that reason that a good many of us have been considerably disturbed in our minds at the report that there has been some division of opinion in the Government on the subject. The Prime Minister indicated that there would be some division in the country, and conveyed the impression that behind that there was a possibility of division in the Government. It becomes the most delicate question of leadership of the present time that the Government should be able to unite all the parties now supporting them on the subject of prosecuting the war on the subject of putting over a new order in Europe. I would press the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some assurance that this matter is deeply in the minds of the Government, and that they are making preparations for putting in front of the people of this country a new order which will be acceptable to all classes of the community, and will also appeal, not only to the Germans, but to the small neutrals all over the world.' These have, in the past, been inclined to say, "What after all is there for us between these rival Imperialisms? Is it worth our while plunging ourselves into

the furnace of war in order to give success to British Imperialism at the cost of German Nazism?" That is a situation which we are bound to face.
I make no complaint that the Prime Minister and the Members of the War Cabinet have found it impossible to deal with this matter more effectively than they have done in the past. I realise the extraordinary difficulties with which they are faced. I agree that so long as the world remains in its present condition of acute military action and danger, they have no option but to remain silent on this matter. What many of us would like to know, however, is that behind that silence and that apparent hesitation there is a profound sense of the urgency of this question in the minds of the Government, and that they are not only doing research work into this subject and giving it anxious consideration, but are building up the fabric of a new order which they will be prepared to present at the critical moment to the peoples of this country and the world. If we postpone that task beyond the critical moment, we know from our experience in 1918–19 what will happen. Directly after a war, is the most difficult time for building up the fabric of a new order and for laying down the principles of the new peace. From the moment that the "All clear" is sounded the work of reconstruction begins. All over the world men and women are "muscling-in" on the new order and vested interests are being built up—it may be capital, or labour, or some new economic system. It is the function of the statesmen of the world to anticipate that, if the peace that we must inevitably build is to be worth having. If we fail in that, we fail not only the people of this generation but those who will follow in the days to come.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): It was not the intention of the Government to take part in this Debate. I rise simply to say that the Government are, as everybody expects, prosecuting the war with vigour and with confidence in ultimate success. During the course of this vigorous prosecution of the war it is natural that attention should be paid to the need for enunciating one's objectives in the war. Opportunity has already been taken by Lord Halifax to make a statement, which has been referred to in this Debate, and


I was very glad to note the manner in which that statement was received by the House in general. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) made a particularly relevant observation when he said that Lord Halifax was speaking as a member of the War Cabinet, and that, I think, is sufficient answer to those who ask what connection Lord Halifax's statement had with the Government and with the policy of the Government
In addition to that, hon. Members will have the opportunity, within a short time, of reading a speech which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary happens to be making in the City of London to-day. Hon. Members may well ask, as I would ask as a Member of this House, why a statement is not being made here at this moment. I should like to have said more had I had any notice at all of this Debate. I did not know there was to be a Debate on this subject until a few hours ago, and I naturally made it my business to come here and to pay that attention to the Debate that I should wish to pay to it. But I do not think the House could expect me, or anybody else, to make impromptu —

Mr. Mathers: May I interrupt to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his statement means that the Government have not considered this matter sufficiently to enable a statement to be available for him to make?

Mr. Butler: No, that is not so at all. The Government have given close consideration to this, and speeches have been made, and are being made, on the lines of describing our objectives which I think hon. Members will find it very interesting to study; but they really could not expect me, or any representative of the Govern-

ment, to make an impromptu speech on matters of this sort in the midst of this serious war. I want to assure hon. Members who have spoken that this is no criticism of them or an attempt to get off "on the cheap" without making any remarks. It just happens to be the fact. Notice was given to the Whips a few hours ago that this Debate was being raised, but I do not think that is sufficient notice on which to expect a reply to be worked out by the Government, however full our pigeonholes and dossiers may be with suitable remarks on this subject.
In conclusion, I would say that the remarks made on all sides of the House have been noted by me, as the representative of the Government present to-day, and proper and due attention will be paid to them. Those remarks which I have found straying from the point have, I think, been answered by other hon. Members in the course of this Debate. There have been effective debating speeches, not the least of them the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), upon which I should like to congratulate him, and to those speeches I do not think the Government have anything to add at the present time. In ending, I would say that we all, I think, would dismiss as irrelevant any remarks in this Debate which would try to give to this country or the world a picture that we are fighting for anything other than greater social security in this country and in Europe and in the world, and for a perpetuation of that freedom and liberty, which has been the historical tradition of this country, for which Europe has always had to fight, and in fighting for which now Europe will, with our help, achieve victory.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.